Opinion
8293
01-31-2019
IN RE NYTASIA W., 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), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jessica Miller of counsel), for presentment agency.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jessica Miller of counsel), for presentment agency.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2017, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the second degree, attempted petit larceny, and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 14 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 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Appellant's conduct during the attempted robbery was inconsistent with that of a bystander, and established that when appellant assaulted the victim, she shared a community of purpose with participants who had attempted to steal merchandise from the victim's store. This conduct established accessorial liability supporting the count of second-degree assault based on a theory of felony assault, among other things (see e.g. People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 461, 997 N.Y.S.2d 136 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1160, 15 N.Y.S.3d 292, 36 N.E.3d 95 [2015] ; Matter of Richard G., 95 A.D.3d 455, 942 N.Y.S.2d 868 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Matter of Justice G., 22 A.D.3d 368, 802 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept. 2005] ). The court's dismissal of counts charging a completed robbery does not support a contrary conclusion. To the extent appellant's argument in this regard may be viewed as asserting that the court's finding was legally repugnant, that claim is unpreserved and without merit.