From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Andrew S.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 3, 2018
165 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2017–08441 Docket No. D–00410–17

10-03-2018

In the MATTER OF ANDREW S. (Anonymous), appellant.

Jeffrey C. Bluth, New York, NY, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack and Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.


Jeffrey C. Bluth, New York, NY, for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack and Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Andrew S. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated July 28, 2017. The order of disposition adjudicated Andrew S. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Upon the conclusion of a juvenile's dispositional hearing, the Family Court shall enter an order of disposition imposing "the least restrictive available alternative ... which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the [juvenile] and the need for protection of the community" ( Family Ct. Act § 352.2[2][a] ). "The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal" ( Matter of Nigel H., 136 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 26 N.Y.S.3d 301 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, a disposition of a period of probation of 18 months was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with the 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 ; Matter of Nigel H., 136 A.D.3d at 1034, 26 N.Y.S.3d 301 ), given the seriousness of the offense and the recommendations made in the probation report (see Matter of Shemar G., 152 A.D.3d 591, 592, 59 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Matter of Tafari M., 90 A.D.3d 1052, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; 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 ).

BALKIN, J.P., SGROI, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Andrew S.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 3, 2018
165 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

In re Andrew S.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Andrew S. (Anonymous), appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Oct 3, 2018

Citations

165 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 6544
82 N.Y.S.3d 734

Citing Cases

In re MoQuease J. M.

Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's request for an ACD…