| Matter of Jonathan E. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05541 [119 AD3d 943] |
| July 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Jonathan E., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Seymour M. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger ofcounsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Dolgow, KristinM. Helmers, and Emma Grunberg of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3,Jonathan E. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(McElrath, J.), dated June 10, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same courtdated March 22, 2013, made after a hearing, finding that he committed an act which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order ofdisposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed theappellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costsor 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 onprobation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period ofplacement has expired (seeMatter of Rasean B., 7 AD3d 520 [2004]). However, since 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 NY2d212 [1980]).
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 crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefifth degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent reviewof the weight 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 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter [*2]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]). Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle,JJ., concur.