In re Demetri B.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
null
[The response contains two cases. As per instructions for Multi-Opinion Documents, I have converted the main opinion (Demetri B.) and ended with null as the second case on the page (Demetrius B.) would be a separate conversion.] Wait, the prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In this PDF: 1. Top of page 331 is the conclusion of an unnamed case (Matter of ...) 2. Middle of page 331 starts “In the Matter of Demetri B., Appellant.” This has a full caption and opinion body. 3. Bottom of page 332 starts “In the Matter of Demetrius B., Appellant.” This is the start of another full case. I will provide the conversion for “In the Matter of Demetri B.“.Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
null
[The instructions say: “Multi-Opinion Documents: If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” “Demetri B.” is the first complete opinion.] Wait, if I have to convert “Demetri B.“, I follow the formatting rules.Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant‘s contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (cf.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf.