IN RE: YADIELLS G. (2018)

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ).  The record supports the inference that appellant, and another boy with whom he acted in concert, caused physical injury to the victim.  Even if appellant was not accessorially liable for the acts of a third boy, the evidence, including the victim's medical records and eyewitness testimony about the specific acts of appellant and his accomplice, established that the victim had already sustained physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) before being attacked by the third boy.

Appellant's arguments that he was deprived of his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy fact-finding hearing are unpreserved (see Matter of Traekwon I., 152 A.D.3d 431, 432, 59 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2017] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits.  Although the overall delay was extensive, all adjournments were on consent, and they were satisfactorily explained in any event.  In addition, appellant was not subjected to any pre-hearing incarceration.  To the extent appellant is suggesting that the speedy trial rights of a juvenile are, or should be, nonwaivable, that suggestion is contrary to law (see e.g. id.;  Matter of Diogenes V., 245 A.D.2d 42, 43, 664 N.Y.S.2d 794 [1st Dept. 1997]; Matter of Nelson R., 232 A.D.2d 315, 648 N.Y.S.2d 594 [1st Dept. 1996], affd 90 N.Y.2d 359, 660 N.Y.S.2d 707, 683 N.E.2d 329 [1997] ).

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments, and find that none of them warrant reversal or modification of the delinquency adjudication.