| Matter of Trayvond W. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01805 [71 AD3d 683] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Trayvond W., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, 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 Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated January 30,2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 3, 2008, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and menacing in the seconddegree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for period of 12months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 3, 2008.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant onprobation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, asthat portion of the order of disposition expired by its own terms (see Matter of Joseph R., 49 AD3d651 [2008]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appellant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention regarding the legalsufficiency of the evidence (see Matterof Omar G., 38 AD3d 549 [2007]; Matter of Bryan C., 23 AD3d 652 [2005]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of DavidH., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's identity andthat the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, constituted the crimes ofcriminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]) and menacing in thesecond degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1]; see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Isaiah Mc., 66 AD3d1025 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see Matterof Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d 933 [2008]; cf. People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon [*2]reviewingthe record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against theweight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d771, 772 [2009]; cf. People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The appellant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,does not require reversal. Covello, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.