Court Opinion

ID: 4386348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-11 16:38:45.841942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:18.100668
License: Public Domain

Matter of David W. (2019 NY Slip Op 02786)

Matter of David W.

2019 NY Slip Op 02786

Decided on April 11, 2019

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 11, 2019

Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Tom, Oing, JJ.

8971

[*1]In re David W., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ashley R. Garman of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2018, 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 robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and menacing in the third 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 suggestive features of the victim's showup identification of appellant did not render the identification unreliable in view of the prolonged interactions between appellant, the victim and an eyewitness. In any event, the victim's testimony was corroborated by that of an eyewitness, who had reliably identified appellant by pointing him out during a police canvass. The evidence also established appellant's accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: APRIL 11, 2019
CLERK