In re Orenzo H., 33 A.D.3d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006). · Go Syfert
In re Orenzo H., 33 A.D.3d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 492 Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent,…1 citing caseopening of page *492 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Luna (Mauricio), 2025 NY Slip Op 50828(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    Based on the testimony and evidence presented, we are of the opinion that "the jury was justified in finding . . . defendant guilty [of the foregoing offenses] beyond a reasonable doubt" ( Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348; see Matter of Denzel F.…
At page 493 “Appellant failed to preserve his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.”1 citing casethe opinion's own words at *493
  • Matter of Celene M., 138 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published
    We have considered and rejected appellant’s arguments concerning the menacing charge, including her challenge to the sufficiency of that count of the petition (see Matter of Orenzo H., 33 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Orenzo H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 24, 2006.
Published opinion
33 A.D.3d 492
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he commit[*493]ted acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant failed to preserve his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would conclude that the court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. We find that the court’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim’s testimony fully established the element of physical injury (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; People v Dailey, 222 AD2d 278 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 971 [1996]). Appellant’s actions in chasing the victim, causing him to fear an attack, evinced the requisite intent for menacing in the third degree (see Matter of Salah S., 203 AD2d 368 [1994]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.