Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: DANTE W., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree (four counts), and placed him on probation for a term of 2 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly permitted the seven-year-old victim to give sworn testimony and the five-year-old victim to give unsworn testimony, in light of the voir dire responses of the two children demonstrating their ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to appreciate the consequences of lying in court, the older child's additional responses indicating that he understood the nature of an oath, and the court's observation of the victims' maturity in comparison with other children their ages (see, Family Court Act § 343.1 [2]; People v. Cordero, 257 A.D.2d 372, 374, 684 N.Y.S.2d 192, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 968, 695 N.Y.S.2d 54, 716 N.E.2d 1099; Matter of Ralph D., 163 A.D.2d 752, 753-754, 557 N.Y.S.2d 1003).
The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence clearly established the element of sexual gratification (see, Penal Law §§ 130.00[3]; 130.65; Matter of Troy B., 270 A.D.2d 107, 704 N.Y.S.2d 476).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 18, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)