| Matter of Jamal G. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03357 [127 AD3d 1081] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jamal G., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Raymond E.Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgowand Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence J.McElrath, J.), dated March 10, 2014. The order adjudicated Jamal G. a juveniledelinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of Jamal G.'s motion which was tosuppress identification testimony, and an order of fact-finding of that court (Emily M.Olshansky, J.), dated December 23, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that he hadcommitted acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime ofattempted robbery in the second degree.
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 Jonathan E., 119 AD3d 943 [2014]). However, since there may becollateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal fromso much of the order of disposition as adjudged the appellant to be a juvenile delinquent,and which brings up for review the suppression ruling and the order of fact-finding, hasnot been rendered academic (see Family Ct Act § 783; Matter of Jonathan E., 119AD3d 943 [2014]).
The Family Court properly declined to suppress the complainant's in-courtidentification of the appellant. The testimony adduced at the independent source hearingestablished that the complainant had multiple opportunities to observe the appellant atclose range during the commission of the crime, which took place during daylight hours,for a period of up to two minutes. The description of the appellant that the complainantgave the police was sufficiently specific to establish his ability to observe the appellant atthe time of the crime. Under these circumstances, the presentment agency met its burdenof demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the [*2]complainant's in-court identification of the appellant wasbased on the complainant's independent observation, and not a challenged showupidentification (see Matter ofMyasia C., 110 AD3d 411 [2013]; Matter of Daquon W., 92 AD3d 422 [2012]; Matter ofAnthony W., 284 AD2d 473 [2001]; Matter of Vernal J., 266 AD2d 215[1999]).
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 one of the perpetratorswho committed the acts complained of (see Matter of Tyquan C., 123 AD3d 502, 503 [2014]; Matter of Anthony A., 121AD3d 885, 886 [2014]; Matter of Shaquary B., 110 AD3d 1065 [2013]; Matter of Dajahn M., 110AD3d 812, 813 [2013]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of 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, 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, 780 [2008]; Matter of Brooklyn B., 77AD3d 934, 935 [2010]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that theFamily Court's fact-finding determination with regard to the appellant's identity was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tyquan C., 123 AD3d at 503;Matter of Anthony A., 121 AD3d at 886; Matter of Shaquary B., 110AD3d at 1066; Matter of Dajahn M., 110 AD3d at 813). Mastro, J.P., Balkin,Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.