Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Christian C. 141 A.D.3d 581

← Cases

In re Christian C.

141 A.D.3d 581 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2016-07-13 English

Judges Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 581
In the Matter of Christian C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
[34 NYS3d 898]

— Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Richard Hoffman, J.), dated August 18, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that Christian C. had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct, and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to a speedy dispositional hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jacob LL., 129 AD3d 1407 , 1408 [2015]; Matter of Michael P., 213 AD2d 717 , 718 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Family Ct Act § 350.1; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967 , 968 [2002]).

p. 582
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 that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20). 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 , 834 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we 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 fact-finding determination 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., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cases cited