Matter of Tyler R.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Tyler R. 2012 NY Slip Op 07877 Decided on November 20, 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 November 20, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
8612

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

Presentment Agency


Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia
S. Colella of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B.
Morris of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about December 14, 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, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services 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 identification and credibility. The victim made a prompt and reliable identification, which was corroborated by circumstantial evidence provided by a police officer.

The court providently exercised its discretion in drawing an adverse inference from appellant's failure to call two witnesses who could have supported his alibi testimony (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 197 [2003]).

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 20, 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.