| Matter of Stanley F. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06793 [76 AD3d 1067] |
| September 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Stanley F., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and FayNg 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, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated June 11,2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 2, 2009, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, adjudgedhim to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Office of Children andFamily Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding orderdated March 2, 2009.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant withthe New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months isdismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs anddisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with the NewYork State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months has been renderedacademic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Vanna W., 45 AD3d 855 [2007]; Matter of Sydney N., 42 AD3d539 [2007]; Matter of ChristianM., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]). However, because there may be collateral consequencesresulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order ofdisposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and which brings up for review thefact-finding order, has not been rendered academic (see Family Ct Act § 783;Matter of Dorothy D., 49 NY2d 212 [1980]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matterof David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008 [2009]; Matter of Davonte B., 44 AD3d763 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt,that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted thecrimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law§ 195.05; cf. People [*2]v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744 [2004]; Matter of JoshuaC., 289 AD2d 1095 [2001]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf.CPL 470.15 [5]), 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 [2008]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord, 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]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.