Opinion
2014-06862, 2014-06863, Docket Nos. D-26359-13, D-26360-13.
10-14-2015
In the Matter of AARON B. (Anonymous), appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeals from two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence McElrath, J.), both dated June 25, 2014. The orders of disposition, upon the admissions of Aaron B., adjudicated Aaron B. a juvenile delinquent and, inter alia, placed him on probation.
ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Family Ct. Act § 141 ; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d 1082, 1082–1083, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694, 695, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231 ), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Donovan E., 92 A.D.3d 881, 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and, inter alia, placing him on probation instead of directing adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct. Act § 315.3 ; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d at 1082–1083, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d at 695, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). The appellant was not entitled to adjournments in contemplation of dismissal merely because the conduct with which he was charged led to his first encounter with the law, or in light of the other mitigating circumstances that he cites (see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d at 1082–1083, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; cf. Matter of Narvanda S., 109 A.D.3d 710, 972 N.Y.S.2d 1 ). The dispositions were appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offenses and the recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d at 1082–1083, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d at 695, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.