Opinion
2011-10-4
In the Matter of DAVID H. (Anonymous), appellant.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, David H. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 29, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated August 19, 2010, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of nine months.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of nine months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of nine months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired ( see Matter of Vanna W., 45 A.D.3d 855, 846 N.Y.S.2d 354; Matter of Sydney N., 42 A.D.3d 539, 840 N.Y.S.2d 128; Matter of Christian M., 37 A.D.3d 834, 831 N.Y.S.2d 247). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent, and which brings up for review the fact-finding order, has not been rendered academic ( see Family Ct. Act § 783; Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342).
The appellant's contention that his allocution was defective is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his admission on that ground ( see Family Ct. Act § 321.4; Matter of Ricky A., 11 A.D.3d 532, 782 N.Y.S.2d 855; Matter of Brandon S., 305 A.D.2d 609, 759 N.Y.S.2d 370). For the same reason, the appellant has not preserved his contention that his mother's allocution was defective ( see Family Ct. Act § 321.4; Matter of Nathaniel P., 58 A.D.3d 860, 873 N.Y.S.2d 118). In any event, the allocution was proper, since the appellant voluntarily waived his right to a fact-finding hearing, and was made aware of the possible specific dispositional orders prior to stating that he committed the act to which he was admitting ( see Family Ct. Act § 321.3[1]; Matter of Alphonso W., 8 A.D.3d 492, 778 N.Y.S.2d 530; Matter of Marlene D., 285 A.D.2d 462, 727 N.Y.S.2d 338).
The appellant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient also is unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Ricky A., 11 A.D.3d 532, 782 N.Y.S.2d 855; see also Matter of Jonathan F., 72 A.D.3d 963, 898 N.Y.S.2d 516, Matter of Rosalis D., 305 A.D.2d 407, 758 N.Y.S.2d 535; cf. People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). In any event, the appellant's admission was legally sufficient to establish that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree ( cf. Penal Law § 165.40).
DILLON, J.P., ENG, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.