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: GUIPSON N. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated May 18, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated March 13, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of three years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 13, 1998, and the denial of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The complainant's identification of the appellant from a photographic array was not unduly suggestive merely because the detective had previously informed the complainant that a suspect was in custody (cf., People v. Mack, 243 A.D.2d 731, 665 N.Y.S.2d 529).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed the charged acts (see, Matter of Tyrell A., 249 A.D.2d 467, 671 N.Y.S.2d 305; cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932). Moreover, the hearing court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, Matter of Joan P., 245 A.D.2d 381, 665 N.Y.S.2d 683). The complainant's contradicted testimony as to when he reported the crime did not detract from the strength of his testimony as to his identification of the appellant and the appellant's role and actions in this incident (see, Matter of Tyrell A., supra; Matter of Richard X., 226 A.D.2d 762, 640 N.Y.S.2d 628; Matter of Andre A., 185 A.D.2d 810, 586 N.Y.S.2d 638).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 14, 1999
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)