From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Brendon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 28, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 910 CAF 07-00827.

September 28, 2007.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered November 16, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order placed respondent with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months.

ARDETH L. HOUDE, LAW GUARDIAN, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DANIEL M. DE LAUS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KIM KOSKI TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Before: Present — Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in placing him in a "limited secure facility" pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.3 (3) (b) as the result of his admitted violation of probation. The court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in juvenile delinquency proceedings ( see Matter of Richard W., 13 AD3d 1063, 1064), and here the court did not abuse that discretion. Contrary to respondent's contention, the record establishes that the disposition ordered by the court is "the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community" (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]).


Summaries of

In re Brendon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 28, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Brendon

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BRENDON H., Appellant. MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 28, 2007

Citations

43 A.D.3d 1283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7089
841 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Shannon F. v. Onondaga Cnty. Attorney

“[T]he record establishes that, viewed in the totality of the proceedings, [respondent] received meaningful…

Shannon F. v. Onondaga Cnty. Attorney

We reject the further contention of respondent that the court failed to consider the least restrictive…