Case ID: ad3d_132/html/0685-01.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 Trevor S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
    [18 NYS3d 81]
   Appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County, (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 1, 2014, and (2) an order of disposition of that court dated November 12, 2014. The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, determined that Trevor S. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The order of disposition, after a hearing, adjudicated Trevor S. to be a juvenile delinquent.

Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,

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 David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tiyana D.R., 130 AD3d 833 [2015]; cf CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]; cf. People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s determination with respect to the sustained charges was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.