Opinion
2018–04737 Docket No. D–28466–17
01-16-2019
In the MATTER OF DANIEL M. (Anonymous), Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell, Sara H. Reisberg, and Genevieve Cahill of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Deborah A. Brenner and MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell, Sara H. Reisberg, and Genevieve Cahill of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Deborah A. Brenner and MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Daniel M. appeals from an amended order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated April 13, 2018. The amended order of disposition adjudicated Daniel M. a juvenile delinquent, upon an amended order of fact-finding of the same court dated March 27, 2018, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sexual abuse in the third degree and attempted dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.
ORDERED that the amended order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of granting his request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Matter of Shemar G. , 152 A.D.3d 591, 59 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Matter of Kieron C. , 140 A.D.3d 1160, 34 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Matter of Tafari M. , 90 A.D.3d 1052, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; Matter of Jonathan F. , 72 A.D.3d 963, 964, 898 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning an order of disposition, and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Shemar G. , 152 A.D.3d at 591, 59 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Matter of Kieron C. , 140 A.D.3d at 1161, 34 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Matter of Mark G. , 131 A.D.3d 1057, 17 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Matter of Tafari M. , 90 A.D.3d at 1052, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852 ). The appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because the instant offenses were his first encounter with the law, or in light of the other mitigating factors that he cites (see Matter of Yaakov K. , 162 A.D.3d 1028, 80 N.Y.S.3d 146 ; Matter of Kieron C. , 140 A.D.3d at 1161, 34 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Matter of Tafari M. , 90 A.D.3d at 1053, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; Matter of Jonathan F. , 72 A.D.3d at 964, 898 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other things, the seriousness of the offenses, which were committed against two vulnerable teenage girls, and evidence showing that probation supervision of the appellant's required therapy and treatment was necessary (see Matter of Yaakov K. , 162 A.D3.d at 1028, 80 N.Y.S.3d 146 ; Matter of Shemar G. , 152 A.D.3d at 592, 59 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Matter of Kieron C. , 140 A.D.3d at 1161, 34 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Matter of Mark G. , 131 A.D.3d at 1057, 17 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Matter of Tafari M. , 90 A.D.3d at 1053, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; Matter of Jonathan F. , 72 A.D.3d at 964, 898 N.Y.S.2d 516 ).
RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.