State v. Daniel F.

3 Citing cases

  1. Gabriela A. v. Presentment Agency

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2376 (N.Y. 2014)

    On this record, where Family Court and the Appellate Division disagreed when evaluating Gabriela A.'s misbehavior, we simply conclude that the Appellate Division's factual findings more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence (see e.g. Matter of State of New York v. Daniel F., 19 N.Y.3d 1086, 1087, 955 N.Y.S.2d 547, 979 N.E.2d 807 [2012] ). In short, we are not, as the dissent puts it, “endors[ing a] trend” in the Appellate Division prohibiting “bootstrapping” or “propos[ing a] test” to immunize a PINS from juvenile delinquency proceedings for obstructing governmental administration (see dissenting op. at 164–165, 989 N.Y.S.2d at 629–30, 12 N.E.3d at 1059–60).

  2. In re Gabriela A.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2376 (N.Y. 2014)

    But the Appellate Division, contrary to Family Court, found that Gabriela A.'s resistance fell within the bounds of acting “beyond the lawful control of ... lawful authority” rather than Penal Law § 195.05. On this record, where Family Court and the Appellate Division disagreed when evaluating Gabriela A.'s misbehavior, we simply conclude that the Appellate Division's factual findings more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence ( see e.g. Matter of State of New York v. Daniel F., 19 N.Y.3d 1086, 1087, 955 N.Y.S.2d 547, 979 N.E.2d 807 [2012] ). In short, we are not, as the dissent puts it, “endors[ing a] trend” in the Appellate Division prohibiting “bootstrapping”

  3. Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7513 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 19 times

    When the Appellate Division decides that a factual finding is against the weight of the evidence, that is itself a new finding of fact (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 [1978] ). In such case, our review of the Appellate Division's decision is limited; we review the record to determine which factual findings “more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence” (Matter of State of New York v. Daniel F., 19 N.Y.3d 1086, 1087, 955 N.Y.S.2d 547, 979 N.E.2d 807 [2012] ). The Appellate Division, reviewing the facts, disagreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that “[respondents] intentionally and in bad faith delayed processing [Rocky Point's] site plan application, and selectively enforced the prohibition against commercial centers in a J–2 zoning district against [Rocky Point]” (93 A.D.3d at 654, 939 N.Y.S.2d 865 ).