| Matter of Carolina P. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03072 [83 AD3d 847] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Carolina P., Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Carolina P.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated May3, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 27, 2010, made after ahearing, finding that she committed an act constituting unlawful possession of weapons bypersons under 16, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced her on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal from the order of dispositionbrings up for review the fact-finding order dated January 27, 2010.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petition in the subject juvenile delinquency proceeding, including the supportingdeposition, provided reasonable cause to believe that the appellant committed the crime ofunlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 (see Family Ct Act § 311.2[2]; Penal Law § 265.05) and contained nonhearsay allegations establishing, if true, everyelement of that crime as well as the appellant's commission thereof (see Family Ct Act§ 311.2 [3]; Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632, 635-636 [1992]; Matter of Michael Grudge M., 80AD3d 614 [2011]).
Among other allegations, the petition and supporting deposition alleged that the appellantpossessed a "dangerous knife" and that she "put said knife down the front of her pants." A knifemay be considered a "dangerous knife," under Penal Law § 265.05, when "thecircumstances of its possession including the behavior of its possessor demonstrate that thepossessor [her]self considered it a weapon and thus a 'dangerous knife' within the contemplationof the statute" (Matter of Jamie D., 59 NY2d 589, 591 [1983]). The circumstances of theappellant's possession of the subject knife, including her behavior in placing the knife down thefront of her pants, "effectively manifested that [she herself] considered it a weapon ofsignificance to the police and not an innocent utilitarian utensil" (id. at 593-594).Accordingly, the petition was facially sufficient to allege the appellant's possession of a"dangerous knife" (id. at 594; see Matter of Patrick L., 244 AD2d 244, 246[1997]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.