In re David B.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree and adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent. He contends that the presentment agency failed to corroborate his admission that he took a vehicle without permission and drove it from Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania, to Jamestown, New York (see, Family Ct Act § 344.2 [3]). We disagree. The corroboration requirement is satisfied by the submission of additional evidence establishing that the crime occurred; it is not necessary that such evidence directly link the youth to the criminal act (see, Matter of Carmelo E.,
There is no merit to the contention that the determination adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent is contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley,