Court Opinion

ID: 4245454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-15 17:20:58.339271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:57.305494
License: Public Domain

Matter of Thomas M.-S. (2018 NY Slip Op 01133)

Matter of Thomas M.-S.

2018 NY Slip Op 01133

Decided on February 15, 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 February 15, 2018

Friedman, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Singh, JJ.

5724

[*1]In re Thomas M.-S., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie T. West of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 19, 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 attempted criminal sexual act in the first and third degrees, sexual abuse in the first and third degrees, attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree and attempted sexual misconduct, 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 credibility determinations. The victim's brief delay in reporting the incident, and the absence of corroborating medical evidence, were satisfactorily explained. We also note that, in its findings of fact, the court carefully explained that its dismissal of some counts of the petition was based on considerations that did not affect its conclusion that the victim's testimony was credible.
We have considered and rejected appellant's remaining argument.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2018
CLERK