Opinion
11-12-2015
In the Matter of BRIAN N. (Anonymous).
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Natalie Smith of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Natalie Smith of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Helene D. Sacco, J.), dated November 25, 2014. The order of disposition, upon an order of fact-finding of that court dated August 20, 2014, after a dispositional hearing, adjudicated Brian N. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231 ; Matter of Donovan E., 92 A.D.3d 881, 939 N.Y.S.2d 515 ; Matter of Dania W., 65 A.D.3d 1356, 886 N.Y.S.2d 183 ). Here, 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 directing an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct. Act § 315.3 ; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231 ; Matter of Natasha G., 91 A.D.3d 948, 937 N.Y.S.2d 616 ). The appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first encounter with the law, or in light of the other mitigating circumstances that he cites (see Matter of Tyriwali, 106 A.D.3d 1082, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; Matter of Ashanti D., 100 A.D.3d 886, 955 N.Y.S.2d 118 ). The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense and the recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d 868, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; Matter of Thomas D., 50 A.D.3d 897, 857 N.Y.S.2d 583 ; Matter of Michael E., 48 A.D.3d 810, 851 N.Y.S.2d 377 ).
ENG, P.J., BALKIN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.