Court Opinion

ID: 3159864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-03 19:05:41.715068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:41.161582
License: Public Domain

Matter of Tenaj D. (2015 NY Slip Op 08910)

Matter of Tenaj D.

2015 NY Slip Op 08910

Decided on December 3, 2015

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 December 3, 2015

Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische, JJ.

16267 16266

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

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2014, 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 grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth 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 victim's observations of appellant during the incident, as well as on other occasions, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the victim was able to make a reliable identification of appellant as the person who took her cell phone.
Appellant's missing witness argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that a missing witness inference is unwarranted (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]), and would, in any event, not affect the result.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 3, 2015
CLERK