| Matter of Dandre H. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08278 [89 AD3d 553] |
| November 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Dandre H., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ellen Ravitch of counsel), forpresentment agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on orabout December 16, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-findingdetermination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimesof criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and sexual misconduct,and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibilitydeterminations.
The court properly permitted the five-year-old victim to give sworn testimony. The victim'svoir dire responses established that he sufficiently understood the difference between truth andfalsity, that lying was wrong, and that lying could bring adverse consequences (see People vNisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 565-566 [1975]; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372 [1999],lv denied 93 NY2d 968 [1999]). Furthermore, there was significant corroboratingtestimony provided by an adult family member. This witness entered the bedroom occupied byappellant and the victim, and saw indications that a sex act had just occurred.
To the extent certain testimony exceeded the bounds of the prompt outcry exception to thehearsay rule (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]), the error washarmless. In this nonjury trial, the court is presumed to have considered only proper evidence inreaching its verdict (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406 [1987]).Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Richter and RomÁn, JJ.