| Matter of Starsha R. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05008 [96 AD3d 952] |
| June 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Starsha R., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and WilliamK. Chang 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 (Freeman, J.), dated June 24,2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 21, 2011, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crimes of attempted assault in the third degree and obstructing governmentaladministration in the second degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her onprobation for 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 21,2011.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court properly determined that there wasprobable cause for police officers to take the appellant into custody pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw § 9.41 (see generally Bayne v Provost, 2005 WL 1871182, *7, 2005 US DistLEXIS 40889, *24-27 [ND NY 2005]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to thepresentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d1008 [2009]; Matter of DavonteB., 44 AD3d 763 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond areasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree(see Penal Law § 195.05; see generally People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744 [2004]; Matter ofJoshua C., 289 AD2d 1095 [2001]), and attempted assault in the third degree (seePenal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00). In addition, upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the findings of fact with regard to theforegoing acts are not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Matter of Devon A., 78 AD3d 1171 [2010]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Miller,JJ., concur.