| Matter of Briona T.G. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00497 [47 AD3d 811] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Briona T.G., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow andSuzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals arefrom (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated June 26, 2006,which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possessionof stolen property in the fifth degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated July18, 2006, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placedher on probation for a period of 18 months.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition (see Matter of Shanita V., 7 AD3d804 [2004]); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant onprobation for a period of 18 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, asthe period of probation has expired (seeMatter of David Franklin M., 45 AD3d 596 [2007]; Matter of Marlene B., 12 AD3d 596 [2004]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.[*2]
Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingin the light most favorable to the Presentment Agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Shariff A.,28 AD3d 546, 547 [2006]; Matter of Darnell S., 300 AD2d 666 [2002];Matter of William A., 219 AD2d 494, 495 [1995]), we find that it was legally sufficientto establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree (see Matterof Roshanda D., 23 AD3d 155 [2005]; Matter of Shanita V., 7 AD3d at 804,805; Matter of Juan Q., 260 AD2d 325, 326 [1999]). Resolution of issues of credibility,as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined bythe trier of facts, who saw and heard the witnesses (see Matter of Carliph T., 26 AD3d 440, 440-441 [2006]; Matter of Thomas S., 26 AD3d389, 390 [2006]; Matter of JabariW., 18 AD3d 767, 768 [2005]). Its credibility assessment should be accorded greatweight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Steven L., 21 AD3d962, 963 [2005]; Matter of James B., 262 AD2d 480, 481 [1999]; Matter ofJeffrey C., 239 AD2d 413, 414 [1997]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, weare satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Anthony S., 305 AD2d689, 690 [2003]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]). Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Fisher and McCarthy, JJ.,concur.