Court Opinion

ID: 5670401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 14:11:16.786877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:39:35.183268
License: Public Domain

— In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated March 13, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 6, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 6, 2003.
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 Frank C., 283 AD2d 643, 643-644 [2001]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the finder 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 (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Andrew Michael S., 100 AD2d 851 [1984]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.