Opinion
2011-12-27
In the Matter of CHRISTIAN W. (Anonymous), appellant.
Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Christian W. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated January 24, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 19, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of forcible touching, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of one year.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Charles S., 41 A.D.3d 484, 838 N.Y.S.2d 136; cf. CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621; Matter of Imani Mc., 78 A.D.3d 705, 706, 911 N.Y.S.2d 381), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of forcible touching ( see Penal Law § 130.52). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Hasan C., 59 A.D.3d 617, 617–618, 873 N.Y.S.2d 709; cf. CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 903 N.Y.S.2d 146). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d at 1076, 903 N.Y.S.2d 146). The discrepancies and inconsistencies between the then 13–year–old complainant's two sworn statements to the police were not of such a magnitude as to render his account of the incident incredible or unreliable ( see People v. Allen, 89 A.D.3d 741, 931 N.Y.S.2d 915).