Opinion
194 CAF 20-00831
03-19-2021
In the MATTER OF JEROME G., Respondent-Appellant. Erie County Attorney, Petitioner-Respondent.
DAVID C. SCHOPP, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO (JOHN MORRISSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (AMY MCCABE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DAVID C. SCHOPP, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO (JOHN MORRISSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (AMY MCCABE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree ( Penal Law § 120.00 [2] ) and reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20). Preliminarily, we reject petitioner's contention that the appeal is rendered moot by the expiration of respondent's one-year conditional discharge. "An appeal from a delinquency proceeding is not necessarily rendered moot by the expiration of the term of the conditional discharge, as the delinquency determination ‘nevertheless implicates possible collateral legal consequences’ " ( Matter of Ryan LL. , 119 A.D.3d 994, 994, 990 N.Y.S.2d 114 [3d Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 904, 2015 WL 1526141 [2015] ).
Although respondent contends that Family Court abused its discretion in allowing certain rebuttal evidence, respondent correctly concedes that he failed to preserve that contention for our review because he failed to object to the allegedly improper evidence (see Matter of Kimaya Mc. , 51 A.D.3d 671, 672, 858 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2d Dept. 2008] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention in the interest of justice (see generally Matter of Shannon F. , 121 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 994 N.Y.S.2d 227 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 94671 [2015] ).
We reject respondent's further contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel made a successful motion for a trial order of dismissal, resulting in the dismissal of the only felony count of which respondent was charged, and secured a conditional discharge on the misdemeanor charges which respondent was ultimately found to have committed. Viewing the evidence, law, and circumstances of the case in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that respondent received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi , 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981] ).