Majority
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court’s finding that he possessed a handgun found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 , 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tiyana D.R., 130 AD3d 833 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 , 772 [2009]; cf. People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s determination with respect to those charges was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 , 644-645 [2006]).
Rivera, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- In re David H. 69 NY2d 792 at 793 p. 908
- In re Tiyana D.R. 130 AD3d 833 p. 908
- In re Darnell C. 66 AD3d 771 at 772 p. 908
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 908
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 at 644-645 p. 908