From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Toniqua A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 2004
7 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-11562, 2003-01513.

Decided May 24, 2004.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated May 20, 2002, which granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of the underlying juvenile delinquency proceeding, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court dated February 6, 2003, which, upon restoring the matter to the calendar, and after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her on probation for a period of one year.

Marsha E. Koretzky, Goshen, N.Y., for appellant.

Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas G. Gardiner of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 20, 2002, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order is not appealable as of right ( see Family Ct Act § 365.1; Matter of Edwin L., 88 N.Y.2d 593, 600-601; Matter of Jeffrey M., 62 A.D.2d 858, 860), and we decline to grant leave to appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the Family Court's finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree ( cf. People v. Cintron, 95 N.Y.2d 329, 332; People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670, 671).

The appellant's contention that the Family Court should have drawn an adverse inference with respect to certain witnesses who did not testify at the fact-finding hearing is unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. CPL 470.05; People v. Russell, 209 A.D.2d 650, 651), and in any event, is without merit ( cf. People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427).

The appellant's remaining contentions either are waived ( see Family Ct Act § 330.2; Matter of Leslie S., 172 A.D.2d 754), or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Toniqua A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 2004
7 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Toniqua A.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF TONIQUA A. (ANONYMOUS), appellant

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

Date published: May 24, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 853

Citing Cases

In re Anthony

Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( cf. CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the court's findings…

In re Akieba McC

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The order appealed from…