IN RE SHAMARIE S., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, ap

3642. IN RE SHAMARIE S., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, ap — JJ. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for ap — ZACHARY W. CARTER, CORPORATION COUNSEL, NEW YORK (ELLEN RAVITCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PRESENTMENT AGENCY.—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and attempted assault in the third degree, unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the criminal mischief finding and dismissing that count of the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3642. IN RE SHAMARIE S., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, ap — JJ. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for ap — ZACHARY W. CARTER, CORPORATION COUNSEL, NEW YORK (ELLEN RAVITCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PRESENTMENT AGENCY.—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and attempted assault in the third degree, unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the criminal mischief finding and dismissing that count of the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Except as indicated, the court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. Although the court dismissed some of the charges, as the trier of fact it was entitled to disregard so much of the victim’s testimony that it found was untruthful, and accept so much of it as it found to have been truthful and accurate.

IN RE SHAMARIE S., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal