Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J., Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court erred by ordering that he be placed in a restrictive setting. We disagree. Family Court Act § 353.5 (1) provides, inter alia, that when, as in this case, the appellant is found to have committed a designated felony act, the court shall determine, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether or not the appellant requires placement in a restrictive setting. Such placement is a drastic course of action that should only be used as a last resort (see, Matter of John H., 48 A.D.2d 879, 880). In this case the evidence establishes overwhelmingly that the needs and best interests of the appellant require that he be placed in a restrictive setting. Therefore, a new dispositional hearing is not warranted.
Furthermore, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Family Court to permit the media access to the dispositional hearing (see, Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 205.4; see also, Matter of Robert M., 109 Misc.2d 427). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.