| Matter of Eddie J. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09229 [68 AD3d 870] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Eddie J., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and SusanPaulson of counsel; Gregory Shiferman on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated March6, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 24, 2008, findingthat the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constitutedthe crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny,and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for aperiod of 18 months with credit for the time spent in detention pending disposition.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to thepresentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonabledoubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constitutedthe crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny,and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Family Ct Act §342.2 [2]; Matter of Brandon C., 66AD3d 893 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Isaiah Mc., 66 AD3d 1025 [2009]; cf. CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon ourindependent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seeMatter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.