Opinion
2018–09571 Docket No. D-4575-18
08-07-2019
In the MATTER OF YEYSON E.M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, NY, for appellant. Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Christi Marie Kunzig of counsel), for respondent.
Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, NY, for appellant.
Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Christi Marie Kunzig of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Yeyson E.M. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ellen R. Greenberg, J.), dated July 5, 2018. The order of disposition adjudicated Yeyson E.M. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of the same court dated June 5, 2018, which, after a hearing, found that Yeyson E.M. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and menacing in the second degree.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. " ‘[T]he evidence supporting a fact-finding in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is legally sufficient if, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant's commission of all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt’ " ( Matter of Christopher H., 123 A.D.3d 713, 714, 997 N.Y.S.2d 682, quoting Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d 757, 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685 ; see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2] ; Matter of Brandon V., 133 A.D.3d 769, 20 N.Y.S.3d 385 ). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree (see People v. Williams, 164 A.D.3d 842, 844, 82 N.Y.S.3d 94 ; People v. Guerrero, 150 A.D.3d 883, 885, 55 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; Matter of Tatiana N., 73 A.D.3d 186, 191, 899 N.Y.S.2d 21 ) and menacing in the second degree (see Matter of Rene S., 167 A.D.3d 630, 86 N.Y.S.3d 904 ; Matter of Franklin D.U., 161 A.D.3d 878, 73 N.Y.S.3d 448 ; Matter of Monay W., 33 A.D.3d 809, 810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 613 ).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Brandon V., 133 A.D.3d at 769, 20 N.Y.S.3d 385 ), we accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell G., 125 A.D.3d 969, 5 N.Y.S.3d 180 ; Matter of Clarissa S., 83 A.D.3d 1083, 921 N.Y.S.2d 540 ; Matter of Lauryn H. [William A.], 73 A.D.3d 1175, 900 N.Y.S.2d 764 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determinations were not against the weight of the evidence.
DILLON, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.