| Matter of Darnell G. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01636 [125 AD3d 969] |
| February 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Darnell G., 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. (Larry A. Sonnenshein ofcounsel; Michael S. Legge on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence J.McElrath, J.), dated December 13, 2013. The order adjudicated the appellant a juveniledelinquent and placed him on probation. The appeal brings up for review a fact-findingorder of that court dated October 25, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that theappellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constitutedthe crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree andattempted assault in the third degree.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
" '[T]he evidence supporting a fact-finding in a juvenile delinquencyproceeding is legally sufficient if, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to thepresentment agency, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant'scommission of all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonabledoubt' " (Matter ofChristopher H., 123 AD3d 713, 714 [2014], quoting Matter of Danielle B., 94AD3d 757, 758 [2012]). Bearing in mind these principles, the evidence adduced atthe fact-finding hearing was legally sufficient to support the determinations made in thefact-finding order. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Christopher H., 123 AD3d at714; Matter of Dashawn R.,120 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2014]), we nevertheless accord great deference to theopportunity of the fact-finder to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see Matter of Christopher H., 123 AD3d at 714; Matter of Dajahn M., 110AD3d 812, 813 [2013]). The Family Court's credibility determinations should not bedisturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Christopher H.,123 AD3d at 714; Matter of Dashawn R., 120 AD3d at 1251). Upon reviewingthe record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination of the Family Court wasnot against the weight of the evidence. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ.,concur.