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: ROBERT P. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered January 20, 2004, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sodomy (now criminal sexual act) in the first degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him in the custody of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services until May 5, 2005.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (cf. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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 sodomy (now criminal sexual act) in the first degree (see Penal Law § 130.50[3] ). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see Matter of Kevin M., 6 A.D.3d 616, 774 N.Y.S.2d 811; cf. People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (cf. People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the Family Court's findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Mikhail V., 12 A.D.3d 375, 783 N.Y.S.2d 314; Matter of Dennis G., 294 A.D.2d 501, 501-502, 742 N.Y.S.2d 858; cf. CPL 470.15[5] ).
The appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter which is dehors the record and not properly before us on direct appeal (see Matter of Mikhail V., supra; cf. People v. Zimmerman, 309 A.D.2d 824, 765 N.Y.S.2d 524; People v. Boyd, 244 A.D.2d 497, 664 N.Y.S.2d 335). The record indicates that the appellant received the effective assistance of counsel throughout the proceedings (see Matter of Mikhail V., supra; cf. People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 14, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)