In re Elijah C.

194 A.D.3d 923

144 N.Y.S.3d 367 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF ELIJAH C. (Anonymous).

2020–01888

Docket No. E–5936–19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—May 3, 2021

May 19, 2021

Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Deborah A. Brenner and Julia Bedell of counsel), for respondent.

SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Elijah C. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Helene D. Sacco, J.), dated January 24, 2020. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon so much of an order of fact-finding of the same court dated January 10, 2020, made after a hearing, as found that Elijah C. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and placed him in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 18 months.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provisions thereof adjudicating Elijah C. a juvenile delinquent based upon the finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and petit larceny, and substituting therefor provisions dismissing those counts of the petition; as so modified, the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the order of fact-finding is modified accordingly.

The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Richard H., 144 A.D.3d 799, 800, 40 N.Y.S.3d 551 ; Matter of Christopher H., 123 A.D.3d 713, 713–714, 997 N.Y.S.2d 682 ). In any event, " ‘[t]he evidence supporting a fact-finding in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is legally sufficient if, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant's commission of all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt’ " ( Matter of Christopher H., 123 A.D.3d at 714, 997 N.Y.S.2d 682, quoting Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d 757, 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685 ; see Family Ct Act § 342.2[2] ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 155.30[5] ; Matter of Alex S., 39 A.D.3d 350, 832 N.Y.S.2d 433 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Christopher H., 123 A.D.3d at 714, 997 N.Y.S.2d 682 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier...