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: HECTOR V., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and placed him on probation for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding as to sexual abuse in the first degree by forcible compulsion and dismissing that count of the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that appellant used forcible compulsion to compel the victim to accede to his acts of sexual abuse (see Penal Law § 130.00[8] ). There was no evidence that appellant overpowered the victim or used any express or implied threat of force (compare e.g. People v. Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208, 548 N.Y.S.2d 468 [1989], lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 872, 553 N.Y.S.2d 304, 552 N.E.2d 883 [1990] ). However, the evidence supports the court's finding of sexual abuse in the first degree involving a person under the age of 11, and that finding was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).
The court properly permitted the six-year-old victim to give sworn testimony, based on her voir dire responses (see People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 565-566, 369 N.Y.S.2d 686, 330 N.E.2d 638 [1975]; People v. Cordero, 257 A.D.2d 372, 684 N.Y.S.2d 192 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 968, 695 N.Y.S.2d 54, 716 N.E.2d 1099 [1999] ).
Appellant's hearsay argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.
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: November 29, 2007
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)