Matter of Brenda B.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Brenda B. 2015 NY Slip Op 08937 Decided on December 3, 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 December 3, 2015
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Kapnick, JJ.
16306

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



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

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for presentment agency.



Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 10, 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 assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition and accompanying deposition were legally sufficient. The detailed factual allegations supported reasonable inferences that the victim sustained a physical injury, and that the injury was inflicted by means of an object that constituted a dangerous instrument (see Matter of Shaquille M., 94 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2012]).

The fact-finding determination was supported by 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. The victim's testimony, along with corroborating evidence including a videotape, established the physical injury and dangerous instrument elements.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 3, 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.