| Matter of Jayson V. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03694 [117 AD3d 960] |
| May 21, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jayson V., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent. |
Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, JaysonV. appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.),dated May 30, 2013, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that he committed actswhich, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in thesecond degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen propertyin the fifth degree, and attempted assault in the third degree, and (2) an order ofdisposition of the same court dated June 24, 2013, which, upon the fact-finding order,adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and, upon his consent, placed him in thecustody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement ina limited secure facility for a period of up to 18 months, with a minimum of six monthsand with credit for time served.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as, upon theappellant's consent, placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Childrenand Family Services for placement in a limited secure facility for a period of up to 18months, with a minimum of six months and with credit for time served is dismissed,without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved thereby (seeCPLR 5511; Matter of CristianC., 104 AD3d 941 [2013]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (seeMatter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficientto establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's identity as the person whocommitted the acts complained of (see Matter of Shaquary B., 110 AD3d 1065 [2013]; Matter of Dajahn M., 110AD3d 812, 813 [2013]; Matter of Kalexis R., 79 AD3d 755, 756 [2010]; Matter of Rodolfo M., 79AD3d 752 [2010]; Matterof Brooklyn B., 77 AD3d 934, 935 [2010]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight [*2]of the evidence (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009];cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Victor I., 57 AD3d 778, 779 [2008];Matter of Brooklyn B., 77 AD3d at 935). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination with regard to the appellant'sidentity was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Shaquary B.,110 AD3d at 1066; Matter of Dajahn M., 110 AD3d at 813; Matter of KalexisR., 79 AD3d at 756; Matter of Rodolfo M., 79 AD3d at 752; Matter ofBrooklyn B., 77 AD3d at 935). Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ.,concur.