Matter of Dominick S.

Matter of Dominick S. 2012 NY Slip Op 00643 Decided on January 31, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 31, 2012
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6642

[*1]In re Dominick S., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Presentment Agency


Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York
(Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne
K. Colt of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and sexual misconduct, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility.

The court properly permitted the seven-year-old victim to give sworn testimony. The victim's voir dire responses established that she sufficiently understood the difference between truth and falsity, the significance of an oath, and the wrongfulness and consequences of lying (see People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 565-566 [1975]; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 968 [1999]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for a period of 18 months. This was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d [*2]947 [1984]) in light of, among other things, the seriousness of the offense and the recommendations by the Probation Department and a psychiatrist.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 31, 2012

CLERK