Opinion
2012-04-27
In the Matter of SHAWN D.R.-S., Respondent–Appellant.Wayne County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.)
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered September 19, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, placed respondent with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services upon an adjudication of juvenile delinquency.Robert A. Dinieri, Attorney for the Child, Clyde, for respondent-appellant. Daniel M. Wyner, County Attorney, Lyons (Kathleen H. Pohl of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered September 19, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, placed respondent with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services upon an adjudication of juvenile delinquency.Robert A. Dinieri, Attorney for the Child, Clyde, for respondent-appellant. Daniel M. Wyner, County Attorney, Lyons (Kathleen H. Pohl of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15[1] ). Contrary to respondent's contention, the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, is legally sufficient to establish that respondent was not licensed or privileged to be in or upon the premises ( see § 140.00[5]; People v. Daniels, 8 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 778 N.Y.S.2d 241, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 705, 785 N.Y.S.2d 32, 818 N.E.2d 674; see generally Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621). The testimony of the three residents of the home in question established that respondent entered the home through the locked back door, that respondent was located on the second floor of the home and that none of the residents gave respondent permission to enter or remain inside the home ( see generally Daniels, 8 A.D.3d at 1023, 778 N.Y.S.2d 241; People v. Matuszek, 300 A.D.2d 1131, 1131–1132, 752 N.Y.S.2d 774, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 630, 760 N.Y.S.2d 111, 790 N.E.2d 285; cf. Matter of Quanel M., 8 A.D.3d 386, 386–387, 777 N.Y.S.2d 726; Matter of Daniel B., 2 A.D.3d 440, 441, 768 N.Y.S.2d 230). We reject the further contention of respondent that Family Court's findings are against the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Travis D., 1 A.D.3d 968, 969, 767 N.Y.S.2d 328).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.