IN RE: ISAIAH MC. (Anonymous) (2009)

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (DiDomenico, J.), dated August 8, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 28, 2008, made after a hearing, inter alia, finding that the appellant had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and attempted assault in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, with credit for time served.   The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 28, 2008.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621;  Matter of Daniel R., 51 A.D.3d 933, 934, 856 N.Y.S.2d 876;  Matter of Shariff A., 28 A.D.3d 546, 547, 816 N.Y.S.2d 92;  Matter of Tiffany M., 24 A.D.3d 556, 808 N.Y.S.2d 287;  cf. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2];  Matter of Jonathan H., 39 A.D.3d 856, 857, 835 N.Y.S.2d 329;  see also Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507, 552 N.Y.S.2d 376;  Matter of Angel R., 134 A.D.2d 265, 266, 520 N.Y.S.2d 444;  cf. People v. Newton, 46 N.Y.2d 877, 879, 414 N.Y.S.2d 680, 387 N.E.2d 612).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Daniel R., 51 A.D.3d 933 at 934, 856 N.Y.S.2d 876;  Matter of Shariff A., 28 A.D.3d at 547, 816 N.Y.S.2d 92;  Matter of Tiffany M., 24 A.D.3d at 556, 808 N.Y.S.2d 287;  cf. People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2];  cf. People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).