Matter of Trayvon D.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Trayvon D. 2014 NY Slip Op 02669 Decided on April 17, 2014 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 April 17, 2014
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Gische, Clark, JJ.



12228


[*1]In re Trayvon D.,

A Person Alleged to be

a Juvenile Delinquent,

Appellant.

Presentment Agency



Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2013, 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 assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of any inconsistencies in testimony. The element of physical injury was established by evidence warranting the conclusion that the assault victim's injuries were more than mere "petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like" (Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]), and that they caused "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]), even though the victim did not seek medical treatment (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

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

ENTERED: APRIL 17, 2014

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.