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: SHANIQUA W. (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 (McLeod, J.), dated May 28, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated April 27, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, adjudicated her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 27, 1998.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that the presentment agency failed to prove that she committed the act of assault in the third degree is without merit. At the fact-finding hearing, Police Officer Kevin Grant testified that he saw the appellant throw a bottle.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the presentment agency was not required to prove that Officer Torchio suffered a substantial physical injury in order for the court to have found that she committed reckless endangerment in the second degree. It is simply the risk of physical injury that is necessary to establish the reckless endangerment (cf., People v. Davis, 72 N.Y.2d 32, 530 N.Y.S.2d 529, 526 N.E.2d 20). Finally, the glass bottle thrown by the appellant constituted a dangerous instrument (see, People v. Soumik, 244 A.D.2d 584, 665 N.Y.S.2d 930).
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)