| Matter of Gilberto M. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07842 [89 AD3d 734] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Gilberto M. III,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andNorman Corenthal of counsel; Meredith E. Dempsey on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Gilberto M. IIIappeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated July2, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated May 24, 2010, made after ahearing, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of attempted gang assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree(two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months. The appealfrom the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as conditionally dischargedthe appellant for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements,as the period of conditional discharge has expired; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the fact-findingdetermination as to attempted gang assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree.Insofar as this contention relates to the issues of justification and physical injury, it isunpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise those specific claims before the FamilyCourt (see Matter of Rodolfo M., 79AD3d 752 [2010]; Matter ofMelissa N., 62 AD3d 884 [2009]; Matter of Anthony R., 43 AD3d 939 [2007]; cf. CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to thepresentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Christopher C., 54 AD3d757 [2008]; Matter of ChristianM., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond areasonable doubt (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]), that the appellant committed actswhich, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted gang assault inthe first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts) (cf. Penal Law§§ 110.00, 120.07, 120.05 [2]). Moreover, upon our independent review of therecord (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we are satisfied thatthe fact-finding determination as to those acts was not against the weight of the evidence (seeMatter of Devon A., [*2]78 AD3d 1171, 1173 [2010]; Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617[2009]). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.