| Matter of Jashaun A. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08006 [122 AD3d 833] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jashaun A., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newberyof counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmersand Michael J. Pastor of counsel; Brian Thayer on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, JashaunA. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio,J.), dated October 31, 2013, which, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court datedAugust 8, 2013, made upon his admission, finding that he committed an act which, ifcommitted by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and FamilyServices for a period of 18 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings upfor review the order of fact-finding and the denial, after a hearing (Oshansky, J.), of thatbranch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In reviewing a hearing court's findings of fact, the credibility determinations of thetrier of fact are ordinarily accorded great weight (see Matter of Tonay C., 119 AD3d 560 [2014]; Matter of Robert D., 69 AD3d714, 716 [2010]). Although the Appellate Division has the power " 'to makenew findings of fact' " (Matter of Tonay C., 119 AD3d at 561, quotingPeople v Lopez, 95 AD2d 241, 253 [1983]; see CPL 470.15), we declineto do so here. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the testimony of police officers atthe suppression hearing that the appellant was observed at approximately 8:05 p.m. onMay 15, 2013, while it was still light outside, walking towards them on a public sidewalkholding a sweatshirt in such a way that the butt of a gun was partially visible, was not soimplausible as to be unworthy of belief. Moreover, the hearing testimony does notsupport the appellant's contention that the officers' testimony was a fabrication that waspatently tailored to nullify constitutional objections (see People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596, 602 [2011];Matter of Tonay C., 119 AD3d at 561; People v Lewis, 117 AD3d 751, 752 [2014]; Matter ofDavid R., 170 AD2d 453 [1991]; see generally People v De Bour, 40 NY2d210, 223 [1976]). Thus, upon crediting the officers' testimony, the Family Court correctlyconcluded that the police had probable cause to arrest the appellant for committing an actwhich, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (see Penal Law§ 265.03).
[*2] Accordingly, theFamily Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress physical evidence. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ.,concur.