Matter of Mike D.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Mike D. 2013 NY Slip Op 00024 Decided on January 3, 2013 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 January 3, 2013
Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
8329

[*1]In re Mike D., 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 (Daniel
A. Pollak of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about July 21, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and also committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, 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]). Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and imposing probation, in view of the seriousness of the offense, appellant's chronic truancy, his prior gang affiliation and drug use, his mother's inadequate supervision and his failure to accept responsibility for his actions (Matter of Akeem B., 81 AD3d 512 [1st Dept 2011]). We note that the adjudication is based on a finding that appellant, while wearing a ski mask and carrying a knife, was part of a group of four who surrounded another teenager.

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 3, 2013

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.