Opinion
June 29, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing him in a Title III facility. Given that the less restrictive types of intervention imposed by the Family Court on two prior occasions appear to have had no impact on deterring the appellant from increasingly violent conduct, we conclude that his placement was the least restrictive available alternative 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 Anthony M., 142 A.D.2d 731). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.