| Matter of Ashanti B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03899 [62 AD3d 790] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ashanti B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Article 3, the appeal is froman order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated June 17, 2008,which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 15, 2008, made after a hearing,finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juveniledelinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up forreview the fact-finding order dated April 15, 2008.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to thepresentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed actswhich, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted assault in thethird degree (see Penal Law §§ 120.00, 110.00). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d617 [2009]; Matter of TanasiaElanie E., 49 AD3d 642 [2008]; Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484 [2007]; cf. CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d933, 933-934 [2008]; Matter ofShariff A., 28 AD3d 546, 547 [2006]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004], [*2]cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition (see Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d899 [2008]; Matter of Ashley D.,55 AD3d 605, 606 [2008]; Matter of Donnell W., 36 AD3d 926 [2007]). In light of theappellant's poor school attendance, marginal academic performance, and disciplinary record inschool, and the involvement of her mother in the underlying events, the imposition of a period of12 months probation was the least restrictive dispositional alternative. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo,Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.