Case ID: ad3d_16/html/0585-01.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 Vincent H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
    [790 NYS2d 890]
   — In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated March 9, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 27, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of reckless driving and resisting arrest, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated January 27, 2004.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of reckless driving and resisting arrest (see Matter of Frank C., 283 AD2d 643 [2001]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf. People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of James B., 262 AD2d 480, 481 [1999]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.