In re Jamel C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), 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 crime of robbery in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. MateoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Matter of Christopher H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Matter of Jose T.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Matter of Malik B.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- In re Friday M.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- In re Janmalone R.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.