Court Opinion

ID: 4282240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-07 16:43:56.355501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:05.094309
License: Public Domain

Matter of Justin R. (2018 NY Slip Op 04084)

Matter of Justin R.

2018 NY Slip Op 04084

Decided on June 7, 2018

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 June 7, 2018

Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Kapnick, Singh, JJ.

6797

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

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about December 19, 2016, as amended, December 21, 2016, 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, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, menacing in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 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 had an ample opportunity to observe appellant before and during the incident, he made an identification of appellant that was nonsuggestive and reliable under all the circumstances, and he provided a detailed and accurate description of appellant, including a specific clothing item he was still wearing at the time of his arrest. We have considered and rejected appellant's arguments to the contrary.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JUNE 7, 2018
CLERK