Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: LEON B., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.

Decided: September 28, 2006

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, McGUIRE, JJ. Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of making graffiti, possession of graffiti instruments, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and defacement of property in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-117(a), and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 6 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence.   Appellant argues that since there was no testimony from a representative of the property's owner, there was insufficient evidence that he lacked the owner's permission to deface the building in question.   However, when viewed in the light of common human experience, the evidence supported the inference that appellant had no such permission (see People v. Borrero, 26 N.Y.2d 430, 435-436, 311 N.Y.S.2d 475, 259 N.E.2d 902 [1970];  Matter of Kevin B., 128 A.D.2d 63, 70, 514 N.Y.S.2d 971 [1987], affd. 71 N.Y.2d 835, 527 N.Y.S.2d 734, 522 N.E.2d 1032 [1988];  People v. Shurn, 69 A.D.2d 64, 67, 418 N.Y.S.2d 445 [1979] ).   We likewise reject defendant's similar challenge to the sufficiency of the petition (see Matter of Wilson G., 214 A.D.2d 670, 625 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1995], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 811, 644 N.Y.S.2d 144, 666 N.E.2d 1058 [1996] ).

The court's summary denial of appellant's motion to suppress physical evidence was proper, since appellant failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 [1993] ).   The petition and voluntary disclosure form specified that a police officer arrested appellant after the officer observed appellant defacing a building.   Appellant's general and conclusory allegations did not address this basis for the arrest, and did not assert any other ground for suppression (see People v. Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721, 723 N.Y.S.2d 761, 746 N.E.2d 1053 [2001];  see also People v. Lopez, 5 N.Y.3d 753, 801 N.Y.S.2d 245, 834 N.E.2d 1255 [2005];  compare People v. Hightower, 85 N.Y.2d 988, 629 N.Y.S.2d 164, 652 N.E.2d 910 [1995] ).

Appellant's arguments concerning suppression of his statement to the police are without merit.