| Matter of Victor I. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09997 [57 AD3d 779] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Victor I., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Alan Beckoff of counsel; Ryan Geeon the brief), 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, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated February 26, 2008,which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 18, 2007, made after a hearing,finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constitutedthe crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent and placed him under the supervision of the New York City Department ofProbation in the County of Queens for a period of two years. The appeal brings up for review thefact-finding order dated December 18, 2007.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter ofDavid H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find it was legally sufficient to establish that theappellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime ofobstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05;Matter of Shaunise R., 40 AD3d766 [2007]; Matter of Garrick B.,30 AD3d 217, 218 [2006]; Matter of Darnell C., 305 AD2d 405 [2003]).Moreover, in conducting an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon [*2]reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that thefindings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Engand Chambers, JJ., concur.