Opinion
January 23, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Susan Larabee, J.).
The record does not support respondent's assertion that the presentment agency failed to turn over Rosario materials as required by Family Court Act § 331.4 (1) (a). The cryptic language appearing on the bottom of one of five police informational reports permits no more than mere speculation as to the possible existence of missing notes.
A strong case for restrictive placement was shown here. The crime was violent and predatory; respondent has a record of truancy and escalating criminal conduct; the 12-year-old, slightly built victim sustained physical injuries as a result of the attack; the clinical psychologist thought it highly likely that respondent would continue his predatory ways in light of strong gang involvement and lack of remorse; and both the clinical psychologist and Probation Department recommended a long-term, highly structured placement ( see, Family Ct Act § 353.5; Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947). As respondent committed a designated felony act, the placement guidelines of Family Court Act § 353.5 (5) (restrictive placement), not section 352.2 (least restrictive available alternative) applied (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.