From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of George Omar-Saiid C. [2d Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 28, 2000.

May 8, 2000.

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 December 10, 19 98, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated September 22, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first agree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated September 22, 1998.

David Lenefsky, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Alan Beckoff of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition. Furthermore, the Family Court's findings were not against the weight of the evidence. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, 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). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Isaac Q., 217 A.D.2d 410). The minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony did not render it incredible as a matter of law (see, Matter of Nikkia C., 187 A.D.2d 581). The Family Court was in the best position to assess the complainant's credibility, as it saw and heard her testimony first-hand (see, Matter of Tyrell A., 249 A.D.2d 467).

RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of George Omar-Saiid C. [2d Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of George Omar-Saiid C. [2d Dept 2000

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of George Omar-Saiid C. (Anonymous), appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Matter of Peter S

, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144; see, Matter of Robert H., 240 A.D.2d 409). The appellant provided no…

Matter of Kryzstof K

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of David H., 69…