| Matter of Tori S. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05191 [119 AD3d 697] |
| July 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Tori S., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andMichael J. Pastor of counsel; Rebecca Hausner on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Tori S.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.),dated August 21, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 4,2013, made after a hearing, finding that she committed acts which, if committed by anadult, would have constituted the crimes of obstructing governmental administration inthe second degree and resisting arrest, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and, uponher consent, placed her on probation until August 3, 2014. The appeal from the order ofdisposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see Matter ofKalexis R., 79 AD3d 755, 756 [2010]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (seeMatter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60NY2d 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, 1076 [2010]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-findingdetermination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of AshleyP., 74 AD3d at 1076; cf.People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Lott and Roman,JJ., concur.