From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Natayya P

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 2003
2 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-03394.

December 29, 2003.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated March 13, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 6, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 6, 2003.

Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Judith Stern and Cynthia Lee of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Deborah Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of Frank C., 283 A.D.2d 643, 643-644; cf. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( cf. People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( cf. CPL 470.15; People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court's findings were not against the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Andrew Michael S., 100 A.D.2d 851).

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Natayya P

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 2003
2 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Natayya P

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF NATAYYA P. (ANONYMOUS), appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 29, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
769 N.Y.S.2d 396

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Bernell

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Viewing the evidence in…

In re Robert C

We modify the order of disposition. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment…