Opinion
2014-10-2
In re MIKE R., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for presentment agency.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for presentment agency.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The record supports the inference that when appellant threw a crate of books at a teacher, he intended to cause physical injury, a natural and likely consequence of such an act ( see generally People v. Getch, 50 N.Y.2d 456, 465, 429 N.Y.S.2d 579, 407 N.E.2d 425 [1980] ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation rather than ordering an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Probation was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant's needs and the community's need for protection ( see Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947, 479 N.Y.S.2d 190, 468 N.E.2d 28 [1984] ). The court properly concluded that appellant was in need of the supervision that would be provided by way of a 12–month term of probation. Among other things, the underlying incident was violent, and appellant has a history of violent and aggressive behavior.
We have considered and rejected appellant's remaining claims.