| Matter of Kedne L. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09395 [45 AD3d 843] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kedne L., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated April 18,2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 1, 2006, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of assault in the third degree as a hate crime (four counts) and menacing inthe third degree as a hate crime (six counts), adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placedher on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-findingorder dated March 1, 2006, and the denial of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant onprobation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation fora period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d656 [2007]; Matter of RasahkeliaiR., 40 AD3d 765 [2007]; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2004]). However,because there [*2]may be collateral consequences resulting fromthe adjudication of delinquency, that portion of the appeal which brings up for review thefact-finding order is not academic (seeMatter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d 656 [2007]; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d at532-533).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of Jerrol H., 19 AD3d693 [2005]; Matter of Bernell R.W.,7 AD3d 724 [2004]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellantcommitted acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault inthe third degree as a hate crime (see Penal Law § 120.00 [1]; § 485.05 [1][a], [b]; Matter of Sydney N., 42AD3d 539, 540 [2007]; Matter of Kristie II., 252 AD2d 807 [1998]; Matter ofKisha J., 225 AD2d 549 [1996]; cf.People v Terrero, 31 AD3d 672, 673 [2006]; Matter of Anisha McG., 27 AD3d 749, 750 [2006]) and menacingin the third degree as a hate crime (see Penal Law §§ 120.15, 485.05 [1] [a],[b]; Matter of Shatasia C., 35 AD3d855 [2006]; Matter of John F.,12 AD3d 509, 510 [2004]; cf. Matter of Anisha McG., 27 AD3d at 750-751).Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a question to be determined by thefactfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded greatdeference on appeal (see Matter of Rasahkeliai R., 40 AD3d at 766; Matter of Joel G., 39 AD3d 644,645 [2007]; cf. People v Romero, 7NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence(see Matter of Matrice L., 25 AD3d555 [2006]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-645).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the showup identification, which was conducted inclose geographic and temporal proximity to the incident, was reasonable under the circumstancesand not unduly suggestive (cf. People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; People v Clinding, 40 AD3d 1117[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 874 [2007]; Matter of David B., 244 AD2d 405[1997]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos andCovello, JJ., concur.