| Matter of Brooke II. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09479 [45 AD3d 1234] |
| November 29, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Brooke II., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent. Delaware County Attorney, Respondent; Brooke II.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard B. Spinney, County Attorney, Delhi (Porter L. Kirkwood of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from a modified order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.),entered January 3, 2007, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.
In March 2006, respondent became involved in a physical altercation between her sister andher sister's friend (hereinafter the victim). It was alleged that respondent jumped onto the victim'sback, knocked her onto the porch into a pile of wood, and punched her in the head. Thisproceeding was commenced alleging that respondent committed acts which, if committed by anadult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the thirddegree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. After a fact-finding hearing, FamilyCourt dismissed the assault charges but found respondent to have committed acts which, if doneby an adult, would constitute reckless endangerment in the second degree and, as such,adjudicated her a juvenile delinquent. Upon consent, an order of disposition placed respondenton probation for a period of one year. Respondent appeals.
Recognizing our deference to Family Court's resolution of credibility issues and, upon [*2]our review of the evidence in a light most favorable to petitioner(see Matter of Timothy HH., 41AD3d 913, 914 [2007]; Matter of Joseph A., 244 AD2d 724, 725 [1997], lvdenied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]), we find legal sufficiency here. Family Court credited thevictim's testimony, buttressed by that of respondent's sister, that respondent jumped on thevictim's back, causing her to fall onto the porch and into a wood pile. Considering the location ofthe altercation, as well as the victim's testimony that respondent punched her, we agree that therewas a substantial risk of a serious physical injury. Although respondent testified that she nevercame into physical contact with the victim, other than to push her away from her sister, thiscreated a credibility determination which Family Court was left to resolve. Finding a valid line ofreasoning that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is legally sufficient evidenceto support the elements of reckless endangerment in the second degree beyond a reasonabledoubt (see Matter of Timothy HH., 41 AD3d at 914; Matter of Manuel W., 279AD2d 662, 662-663 [2001]; Matter of Joseph A., 244 AD2d at 725; see also Matter of Timothy S., 1 AD3d908, 909 [2003]), we also decline to disturb the determination on a weight of the evidencebasis as Family Court's credibility and factual determinations are amply supported by the record(see Matter of Timothy HH., 41 AD3d at 914; Matter of Manuel W., 279 AD2dat 662-663; Matter of Joseph A., 244 AD2d at 725).
As to respondent's challenge to her placement on probation, the record reflects thatrespondent consented to such disposition. Had she not so consented, we would have found nobasis to disturb Family Court's discretionary determination upon viewing respondent's probationreport and her failure to have taken any responsibility for the escalation of this altercation (seegenerally Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947, 948 [1984]; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440,440 [2006]).[FN*]
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the modified order isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: We note that no dispositionalhearing transcript was provided.