| Matter of Johnny H. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07856 [111 AD3d 576] |
| November 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Johnny H., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Michael J. Pastor of counsel),for presentment agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), enteredon or about January 25, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon afact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, wouldconstitute the crimes of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon inthe fourth degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for aperiod of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied suppression of appellant's statement to the police. There isno basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The record establishes thatappellant was not questioned until after the police gave Miranda warnings toboth appellant and his mother, that the police complied with the requirements of FamilyCourt Act § 305.2 (7), and that the statement was voluntary (see Matter of Jimmy D., 15NY3d 417 [2010]).
The court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress identification evidence.There was nothing suggestive about the police photo array. We find no basis forsuppression in the fact that there may have been a civilian-arranged single-photoidentification, made prior to the police procedure and without any police involvement(see Perry v New Hampshire, 565 US —, 132 S Ct 716 [2012]; People v Marte, 12 NY3d583, 587 [2009], cert denied 559 US 941 [2010]). In any event, theidentification was reliable and the court's findings of independent source are alsosupported by the record. Appellant's assertion that the victim did not see who stabbedhim is meritless because immediately after the stabbing, the victim turned and sawappellant wielding a knife and being restrained by other persons.
The court's fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence andwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).The evidence included both reliable identification testimony and appellant's voluntaryconfession.
The placement was a proper exercise of the court's discretion that constituted theleast [*2]restrictive dispositional alternative consistentwith appellant's needs and the community's need for protection (see Matter ofKatherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in light of the extreme seriousnessof appellant's attack on the victim. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Freedmanand Feinman, JJ.