Matter of Nixon C.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Nixon C. 2012 NY Slip Op 07195 Decided on October 25, 2012 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 October 25, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
8376

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

Presentment Agency


Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan
Clement of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H.
Chang of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Nancy M. Bannon, J. at fact-finding hearing; Jeanette Ruiz, J. at disposition), entered on or about July 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 robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation 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 (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant claimed to be interested in buying the victim's jacket, and asked to try it on. Appellant put on the jacket, but refused to return it despite repeated requests to do so, over an extended period of time. When the victim finally attempted to take back his jacket, appellant began fighting with him. The evidence supported the inferences that appellant intended to permanently deprive the victim of the jacket (see e.g. Matter of Roshanda D., 23 AD3d 155 [1st Dept 2005]), and that appellant used physical force to retain it (see e.g. People v Nieves, 37 AD3d 277 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 848]).

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

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2012

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.