| Matter of Tevin K. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03364 [127 AD3d 1090] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Tevin K., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing andDevin Slack of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County(Robert I. Caloras, J.), dated May 19, 2014, and (2) an order of disposition of that courtdated July 30, 2014. The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that Tevin K. hadcommitted acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes ofrobbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifthdegree. The order of disposition adjudicated Tevin K. a juvenile delinquent and placedhim on probation for a period of 18 months.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of dispositionand is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
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, that the appellant committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the seconddegree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen propertyin the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Dashawn R., 120AD3d 1250, 1251 [2014]), we nevertheless afford great deference to the opportunityof the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor(Matter of Dashawn R., 120 AD3d at 1251; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the FamilyCourt's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.