Opinion
2016-08635, Docket No. D-03527-16.
07-19-2017
In the Matter of ANTHONY W. (Anonymous), appellant.
Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Susan P. Greenberg and Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondent.
Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Susan P. Greenberg and Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 20, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon an order of fact-finding of that court dated February 22, 2016, made upon his admission, finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 13 months.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation under the enhanced supervision program for a period of 13 months, based upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. The court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Norell A.–T., 141 A.D.3d 712, 713, 35 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; Matter of Kieron C., 140 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 34 N.Y.S.3d 174 ). " ‘[T]he least restrictive alternative test does not require the court to actually try the lowest form of intervention, have it fail, and then try each succeeding level of intervention’ " ( Matter of Sharice B., 149 A.D.3d 833, 833, 51 N.Y.S.3d 620, quoting Matter of Tristan W., 258 A.D.2d 585, 586, 685 N.Y.S.2d 477 ; see Matter of Leah G., 23 A.D.3d 658, 658, 805 N.Y.S.2d 405 ). The disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of the appellant and the need for protection of the community in light of, inter alia, the recommendation in the probation report, the appellant's mother's professed inability to adequately supervise him on her own, the appellant's academic problems, and the evidence demonstrating that he continued to smoke marijuana and stole from his mother after the order of fact-finding was issued (see Matter of Tanaja F., 147 A.D.3d 936, 937, 47 N.Y.S.3d 120 ; Matter of Elijah G., 138 A.D.3d 839, 29 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; Matter of Shaundale W., 82 A.D.3d 1254, 1255, 919 N.Y.S.2d 364 ; Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 903 N.Y.S.2d 146 ; Matter of Antonio C., 294 A.D.2d 123, 124, 741 N.Y.S.2d 520 ).