Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Schecter, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On December 7, 1990, at 3:40 A.M., the arresting officer observed the then 15-year-old appellant sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with its engine running. The officer also observed that the car's "vent" window and steering column had been broken. In response to the officer's inquiry, the appellant was unable to produce any registration for the vehicle and stated that the car did not belong to him. Believing the vehicle to be stolen, the officer requested the appellant to step out of the car, whereupon the officer "patted * * * down" the appellant and removed a screwdriver from his pocket. The appellant was arrested, and a juvenile delinquency petition, supported only by the deposition of the arresting officer, was brought against the appellant.
On appeal, the appellant argues that without the supporting deposition of the car owner showing that the car was indeed stolen, the petition was facially insufficient and thus jurisdictionally defective.
The nonhearsay allegations and discoveries of the officer, as stated in his supporting deposition, were sufficient to infer, from the surrounding circumstances, the appellant's lack of ownership and nonpermissive use of the car (see, People v Borrero, 26 N.Y.2d 430, 436; Matter of Timothy L., 71 N.Y.2d 835, 836). In addition, the appellant's statement to the officer that the appellant did not own the car, although hearsay, constituted admissible hearsay as either an admission or declaration against penal interest (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 209-211, 255-258, 260 [Prince 10th ed]). As such, the statement can be considered in assessing the facial sufficiency of the petition (see, Matter of Rodney J., 108 A.D.2d 307, 311).
Under these circumstances, the petition established a legally sufficient case against the appellant in that it set forth "`sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, if unexplained or uncontradicted'" (Matter of Jahron S., 79 N.Y.2d 632, 639, quoting People v Potwora, 44 A.D.2d 207, 210).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.