IN RE: Roberto C. E.-C. (Anonymous) (2018)

DECISION & ORDER

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, Roberto C. E.-C. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ellen R. Greenberg, J.), dated July 5, 2017.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent.  The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review an order of fact-finding of the same court dated May 17, 2017, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and assault in the third degree.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of Chakelton M., 111 A.D.3d 732, 733, 975 N.Y.S.2d 95;  Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d 757, 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685;  Matter of Imani Mc., 78 A.D.3d 705, 706, 911 N.Y.S.2d 381), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant, acting in concert with others, committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the first degree (see Matter of Andre S., 51 A.D.3d 1030, 1033, 858 N.Y.S.2d 775;  Matter of Bruce K., 306 A.D.2d 479, 480, 761 N.Y.S.2d 513).  The appellant's conduct, which consisted of hitting and kicking the victim, intentionally aided the principal actors, and served to overcome the victim's resistance to the robbery (see Matter of Richard G., 95 A.D.3d 455, 455–456, 942 N.Y.S.2d 868;  Matter of Jonathan V., 43 A.D.3d 470, 471, 840 N.Y.S.2d 537;  Matter of Justice G., 22 A.D.3d 368, 369, 802 N.Y.S.2d 167).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Brandon V., 133 A.D.3d 769, 769, 20 N.Y.S.3d 385;  Matter of Dashawn R., 120 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 992 N.Y.S.2d 122;  Matter of Kaseem R., 113 A.D.3d 779, 780, 978 N.Y.S.2d 886), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see Matter of Dajahn M., 110 A.D.3d 812, 813, 973 N.Y.S.2d 248;  Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d at 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685;  Matter of Jamel C., 92 A.D.3d 782, 782–783, 938 N.Y.S.2d 456;  Matter of Kalexis R., 85 A.D.3d 927, 928–929, 925 N.Y.S.2d 356).  The hearing court's credibility determinations should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Brandon V., 133 A.D.3d at 769, 20 N.Y.S.3d 385;  Matter of Darnell G., 125 A.D.3d 969, 969, 5 N.Y.S.3d 180;  Matter of Dashawn R., 120 A.D.3d at 1251, 992 N.Y.S.2d 122).  Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence.

MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.