| Matter of Jared WW. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09144 [56 AD3d 1009] |
| November 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jared WW., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent. Stephen B. Flash, as Assistant County Attorney of Tompkins County, Respondent;Jared WW., Appellant. |
—[*1] Jonathan Woods, County Attorney, Ithaca (Stephen B. Flash of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.),entered February 11, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquentbased upon alleged incidents that occurred between July 10, 2007 and July 26, 2007, when, in theback seat of a school bus, he purportedly touched the 10-year-old victim's vaginal area with hishand and his penis. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that petitioner hadestablished beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent, who was 14 years old, had committedacts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted two counts of the crime of sexualabuse in the first degree. A subsequent order of disposition adjudged respondent to be a juveniledelinquent and, among other things, placed him on probation for one year. [*2]Respondent appeals.[FN*]
Respondent argues that Family Court's determination was against the weight of the evidence."On appellate review, Family Court, as the trier of fact, is entitled to have its determinations ofwitness credibility and resolution of disputed facts 'afforded the same weight given a jury verdict'" (Matter of Zachary K., 299 AD2d 755, 756 [2002], quoting Matter of JosephA., 244 AD2d 724, 725 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]). When presentedwith a weight of the evidence argument in a case, such as this one, where a differentdetermination would not have been unreasonable, we view the evidence in a neutral light whileaccording deference to the credibility determinations of Family Court (see Matter of Shane EE., 48 AD3d946, 948 [2008]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Here, there were some inconsistencies in the young victim's description of the pertinentevents. Most significantly, she appeared at one point on cross-examination to indicate thatrespondent did not touch her with his penis. However, later during the same cross-examinationshe described both events as being "kind of mixed up together." Her testimony was furtherclarified on redirect regarding being touched both by respondent's hand and his penis. FamilyCourt acknowledged that there were inconsistencies in the victim's recitation of events, butnevertheless found the essentials of her testimony to be credible. Noting the victim's young ageand, upon review of her entire testimony, we find no reason to reject Family Court's assessmentof her credibility and we are unpersuaded that the determination was against the weight of theevidence (see Matter of Zachary K., 299 AD2d at 756-757; Matter of Manuel W.,279 AD2d 662, 662-663 [2001]; Matter of James OO., 234 AD2d 822, 823 [1996], lvdenied 89 NY2d 812 [1997]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: Although respondent filed anotice of appeal from only the fact-finding order and not from the dispositional order (seeFamily Ct Act § 1112 [a]), we treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave toappeal and grant such application (see Matter of Jason FF., 224 AD2d 900, 900 [1996]).