From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 17, 1995
214 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 17, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.).


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

The appellant's contention that the petition in the present juvenile delinquency proceeding is jurisdictionally defective is without merit. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the nonhearsay allegations of the factual part of the petition and the supporting depositions establish that the appellant did not have permission or authority to use or to take the complainant's car (see, Family Ct Act § 311.2). In his supporting deposition, the arresting police officer averred that the appellant had been seen sitting in the driver's seat of the complainant's car, with the engine running, that the steering column and the door lock had been damaged, that the appellant had been in possession of a screwdriver, and that another person had been outside of the car, removing its hubcaps. One can infer from these nonhearsay allegations the appellant's lack of ownership and nonpermissive use of the car (see, Matter of Rey R., 188 A.D.2d 473).

We reject the appellant's contention that the evidence does not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Family Ct Act § 342.2). This case was tried before the Family Court without a jury. In such cases, the greatest respect must be accorded to the Family Court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its resolution of disputed questions of fact (see, Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). The determination of the Family Court is accorded the same weight as a jury verdict is accorded (see, Matter of Jamal V., supra). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 17, 1995
214 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Wilson

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Apr 17, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 261

Citing Cases

People v. Pantoja

The quoted facts, even when taken together with all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from those facts…

Matter of Sandy J

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Viewing the evidence in the light most…