| Matter of Darnell G. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03479 [106 AD3d 906] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Darnell G., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers,Jolie Eisenberg, and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, DarnellG. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.),dated April 16, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January12, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, if committed by anadult, would have constituted the crime of obstructing governmental administration inthe second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in thecustody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition. The appeal brings up forreview the fact-finding order dated January 12, 2012.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed theappellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a periodof 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with theNew York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months hasbeen rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Stanley F., 76AD3d 1067, 1068 [2010]; Matter of Vanna W., 45 AD3d 855, 856 [2007]; Matter of Sydney N., 42 AD3d539, 540 [2007]; Matter ofChristian M., 37 AD3d 834, 834 [2007]). However, because there may becollateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal fromso much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent,and which brings up for review the fact-finding order, has not been rendered academic(see Family Ct Act § 783; Matter of Dorothy D., 49 NY2d 212[1980]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (seeMatter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Starsha R., 96 AD3d 952, 952 [2012]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Eddie J., 68 AD3d 870, 870 [2009]), we find thatit was [*2]legally sufficient to establish, beyond areasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crime of obstructing governmental administration in thesecond degree (see Penal Law § 195.05; Matter of Starsha R., 96AD3d at 952; Matter of Stanley F., 76 AD3d at 1068; Matter of DarnellC., 305 AD2d 405, 406 [2003]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Danielle B., 94 AD3d 757, 758 [2012]; Matter of Quamel D., 78AD3d 1050, 1051-1052 [2010]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Danielle B., 94 AD3d at 758; Matter of Kalexis R., 85 AD3d927, 928-929 [2011]; Matter of Macye Mc., 82 AD3d 892, 894 [2011]; Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d771, 772 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-findingdetermination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 342.2 [2]; Matter of Starsha R., 96 AD3d at 952; Matter of StanleyF., 76 AD3d at 1068; cf.People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson andCohen, JJ., concur.