| Matter of Tyrika L. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06686 [110 AD3d 886] |
| October 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tyrika L.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo andKaren M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, TyrikaL. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio,J.), dated October 19, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedOctober 10, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that she committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree,obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and resisting arrest,adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 18months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-findingorder.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (seeMatter of David H., 69 NY2d at 793), we find that it is was legally sufficient toestablish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degreebased on a theory of accomplice liability (see Penal Law §§ 20.00,120.00 [1]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied thatthis determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of AshleyP., 74 AD3d at 1076). The evidence of the appellant's conduct before, during, andafter the acts established beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted in concert to committhe charged acts (see Matter ofKenyetta F., 49 AD3d 540, 541 [2008]; Matter of Devin R., 254 AD2d221, 222 [1998]; Matter of Joseph J., 205 AD2d 777, 778 [1994]).
Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency(see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond areasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in thesecond degree and resisting arrest (see Penal Law §§ 195.05,205.30). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (seeMatter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5];People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Ashley P., 74AD3d 1075, [*2]1076 [2010]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that these determinations of the Family Court were notagainst the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d at 1076; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.