Opinion
2001-09160
Argued June 14, 2002.
September 24, 2002.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered September 20, 2001, as, after a hearing, placed the respondent with it for placement in the Tryon Facility and directed it to immediately provide in-patient substance-abuse treatment and counseling.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Oren L. Zeve of counsel), for appellant.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the provisions thereof directing the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to place the respondent in the Tryon Facility and directing it to immediately provide in-patient substance-abuse treatment and counseling to the respondent are vacated, and the New York State Office of Children and Family Services is directed to place the respondent in a limited-secure facility pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.3 (3) (b).
Although the order of disposition is phrased in terms of placement of the respondent with a private agency pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.3 (4), the Family Court's decision expressed a preference to place the respondent at a limited-secure state facility, and the order of disposition itself places the respondent with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS) for placement in the Tryon Facility, which is a state-operated facility. In light of the irregularity in the order of disposition, it is reversed insofar as appealed from to provide for placement of the respondent with OCFS for placement at a limited-secure state facility pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.3(3)(b) (cf. Matter of Quentin L., 231 A.D.2d 890).
Moreover, since the placement was clearly made pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.3(3), the Family Court erred in ordering that OCFS place the respondent at a specific facility (see Matter of Lavar C., 185 A.D.2d 36, 41-42). Pursuant to Executive Law § 504, OCFS has the discretion to determine the particular facility in which a juvenile placed in its care shall be cared for (see Matter of Kyle S., 64 A.D.2d 666, 667).
In addition, Executive Law § 504 also provides OCFS with the discretion to determine the particular treatment program in which a juvenile in its care should be placed, based upon its evaluation of that juvenile. Accordingly, the Family Court erred in directing that OCFS immediately place the respondent in an in-patient substance-abuse treatment and counseling program.
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.