Case ID: ad3d_134/html/0433-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Tenaj D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
    [19 NYS3d 732]
   Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim’s observations of appellant during the incident, as well as on other occasions, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the victim was able to make a reliable identification of appellant as the person who took her cell phone.

Appellant’s missing witness argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that a missing witness inference is unwarranted (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]), and would, in any event, not affect the result. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Gische, JJ.