Matter of Markquel S.
2012 NY Slip Op 01869 [93 AD3d 505]
March 15, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 25, 2012


In the Matter of Markquel S., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant.

[*1]Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers ofcounsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), forpresentment agency.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about January 20,2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that hecommitted acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in thesecond degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the seconddegree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 18 months,unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant tried to stab a fellow student with apencil, and when the victim tried to shield his face by putting up his hands, appellant stabbed atthe victim again. This time the pencil lodged in the victim's wrist, caused a painful puncturewound, and had to be removed by the school nurse. This evidence established all of the elementsof the offenses at issue, and it undermines appellant's argument that he was merely engaging inhorseplay.

The pencil was a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]) because itwas readily capable of causing serious physical injury under the circumstances of its use,regardless of the level of injury actually inflicted (see People v Molnar, 234 AD2d 988[1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1038 [1997]). Appellant's intent to cause physical injury, atleast, could be readily inferred from his actions (see People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456, 465[1980]), and the evidence [*2]established that physical injuryresulted (see People v Chiddick, 8NY3d 445 [2007]; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). The evidence alsoestablished menacing, in that appellant placed the victim in reasonable fear of physical injury.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.