Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

In re Jamel C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 14, 2012

92 A.D.3d 782; 938 N.Y.2d 456

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Jose T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re Friday M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of Deandre A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Roberto C.E.-C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Malik B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Jaquan F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Christopher H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Justin D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Justin D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Paul T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Paul T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Racheal M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Racheal M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Janmalone R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Janmalone R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord deference to *783the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The evidence of the appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the acts established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted in concert to commit the charged acts (see Matter of Geovanny V., 82 AD3d 993, 994 [2011]; Matter of Jamal G., 293 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.