From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1999
266 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted September 22, 1999

November 1, 1999

Johanna G. Hendrix, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated December 22, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated November 25, 1997, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the third degree, and menacing in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Division of Youth for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 25, 1997.

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 Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776 ; cf.,People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94 ; Matter of Joseph J., supra). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Joseph J., supra; cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88 ). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15[5]).

BRACKEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1999
266 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of B

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF EDWIN B. (Anonymous), appellant

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Matter of William U

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of Darryl W., 275…

Matter of Frank C

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.…