From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Mtr. of Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 2006
34 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-10362.

November 8, 2006.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated October 7, 2005, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated April 5, 2005, upon the appellant's admission, finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months.

Before: Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months ( see Matter of Gabriel A., 12 AD3d 666, 667). The Family Court's order was the least restrictive available alternative which was consistent with the needs and best interests of the appellant and the need for protection of the community ( see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]; Matter of Leah G., 23 AD3d 658).


Summaries of

In the Mtr. of Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 2006
34 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In the Mtr. of Manuel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MANUEL B, a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 8, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8120
823 N.Y.S.2d 348

Citing Cases

In re Malik

The Family Court is vested with broad discretion in entering dispositional orders, and its determination with…

In re Jose A.

The court is required to choose the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and…