Matter of Tyquan Y.
2008 NY Slip Op 08136 [55 AD3d 843]
October 21, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 10, 2008


In the Matter of Tyquan Y., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent,Appellant.

[*1]Dawn M. Shammas, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Alan G.Krams of counsel), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from anorder of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.), dated March 7, 2007, which,upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 10, 2007, made after a hearing, finding thatthe appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes ofobstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up forreview the fact-finding order dated January 10, 2007.

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, as theperiod of probation has expired (see Matterof Daniel R., 51 AD3d 933 [2008]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter ofDavid H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]), 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 obstructinggovernmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest (see Matter of Shaunise R., 40 AD3d766 [2007]). [*2]Moreover, upon the exercise of our factualreview power, we find that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see Matter of Donta J., 35AD3d 740 [2006]).

The appellant's remaining argument is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, McCarthy andLeventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.