Matter of Eddie J.

Matter of Eddie J. 2009 NY Slip Op 09229 [68 AD3d 870] December 8, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Eddie J., Appellant.

—[*1] Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Susan Paulson of counsel; Gregory Shiferman on the brief), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated March 6, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 24, 2008, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months with credit for the time spent in detention pending disposition.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Brandon C., 66 AD3d 893 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Isaiah Mc., 66 AD3d 1025 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.