July 24, 2013
In the Matter of Akanilli E. D. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-309-12)
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel; Barry Guttman on the brief), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Akanilli E. D. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath, J.), dated September 6, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated July 20, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793; cf. People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it is 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 robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, based on a theory of accomplice liability (see Family Ct Act § 342.2; Penal Law § 20.00; Matter of Richard G., 95 A.D.3d 455, 455-456; Matter of Kenyetta F., 49 A.D.3d 540, 541; Matter of Justice G., 22 A.D.3d 368, 369; Matter of Louis C., 6 A.D.3d 430, 431; Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 777, 778; Matter of Aida S., 189 A.D.2d 818). Moreover, 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 Marco N., 82 A.D.3d 984; Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d 1075, 1076; cf. People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.