Matter of Charmaine M.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Charmaine M. 2015 NY Slip Op 02559 Decided on March 26, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 26, 2015
Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman, JJ.
14626 14625

[*1] In re Charmaine M., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency



Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), for presentment agency.



Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed her with the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. Appellant and another girl placed themselves in very close proximity to the victim, on opposite sides of her, while a third girl stole the victim's phone. Appellant then fled with the other girls. This evidence supports an inference that appellant was no mere onlooker, but was an intentional participant in the theft, whose role was to block the victim or otherwise render assistance as needed (see Matter of Antoine C.,

124 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 26, 2015

CLERK



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.