From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Umar C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 27, 1994

Appeal from the Family Court, Richmond County (Cognetta, J.).


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

We reject the appellant's contention that the Family Court erred in granting the presentment agency's application for a single, brief adjournment of the fact-finding hearing. The record demonstrates that the hearing was scheduled to commence on a Monday, but that on the preceding Friday at the earliest, the parties and the court first became aware that the Assistant Corporation Counsel who had been assigned to the case had experienced a sudden and unanticipated medical illness. Moreover, on the scheduled hearing date, the Assistant Corporation Counsel was being medicated and was preparing to undergo medical testing for her condition, which the court reasonably found to be "an emergency situation". Accordingly, in view of the particular circumstances of this case (see, Matter of Frank C., 70 N.Y.2d 408, 414; Matter of Robert B., 187 A.D.2d 347, 348), the presentment agency established "good cause" for the adjournment (see, Family Ct Act § 340.1) and the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in adjourning the hearing (see generally, Matter of Bryant J., 195 A.D.2d 463; Matter of Sherrie B., 191 A.D.2d 492; Matter of Carlos T., 187 A.D.2d 38).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of Neftali D., 204 A.D.2d 319; Matter of William T., 182 A.D.2d 766), we find that it was legally sufficient both to establish the appellant's guilt and to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the complainant's logical and consistent testimony, which the Family Court appears to have credited and which we find credible, demonstrated that the attack by the appellant was unprovoked and unjustified. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Umar C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

In re Umar C.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of UMAR C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

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

Date published: Jun 27, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

Matter of Y.K

Accordingly, the Family Court analyzed the justification evidence in a legally appropriate manner. Turning to…

Matter of Ronald

We agree with the appellant that Matter of Frank C. ( 70 N.Y.2d 408), compels the conclusion that the Family…