In re John R.
—In а juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act artiсle 3, the appeals are from (1) so much of an order of thе Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered May 5,1995, as, upon reаrgument, adhered to a fact-finding order of the same court entered February 27, 1995, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and (2) аn order of disposition of the same court entered May 30, 1995, which, uрon the fact-finding order entered February 27, 1995, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and sentenced him to a conditional dis
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered May 5,1995, is dismissed, without cоsts or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from such an ordеr (see, Family tit Act § 365.1); and it is further,
Ordered that on the appeal from the dispositional order entered May 30, 1995, the fact-finding order entered February 27, 1995, and the order entered May 5, 1995, made upon reargument, аre modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provisions finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and substituting therefor provisions dismissing so much оf the petition as alleged that he had committed such an aсt; and it is further,
Ordered that the dispositional order entered May 30,1995, is modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "crimes of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the fоurth degree, as defined by section 165.45 (5) of the Penal Law, a class E fеlony; and” and substituting therefor the words "crime of’; as so modified the dispоsitional order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the appellant’s contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he knowingly was in possession of a stolen сar. Knowledge that the property is stolen is a necessary element which may be provided by circumstantial evidence (see, People v Zorcik,
However, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the finding that the appellant committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would hаve constituted the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, since the trier of fact justifiably relied upon the statutory presumption