| Matter of Joel C. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01481 [70 AD3d 936] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joel C., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and SusanB. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals arefrom (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated March 16,2009, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by anadult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree,and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated May 18, 2009, which, upon thefact-finding order and after a dispositional hearing, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced him on probation for a period of 15 months.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition (cf. CPLR 5501); andit is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When read in its entirety, the petition, including the supporting depositions, containednonhearsay allegations establishing, if true, every element of criminal possession of a weapon inthe fourth degree and the appellant's commission thereof (see Family Ct Act §311.2 [3]; Matter of Andre S., 51 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2008]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matterof David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Davonte B., 44 AD3d 763 [2007];Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484, 485 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed byan adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Penal Law § 265.01 [2]; Matterof Brandon C., 66 AD3d 893 [2009]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record,we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence(see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]).[*2]
The appellant's contention with respect to the showupidentification is without merit (see People v Samuels, 39 AD3d 569, 570 [2007];People v Loo, 14 AD3d 716 [2005]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.