Opinion
2014-01-22
In the Matter of THOMAS N. (Anonymous), appellant.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Thomas N. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated February 6, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 20, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding ( see Family Ct. Act § 141; Matter of Tafari M., 90 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 934 N.Y.S.2d 852; Matter of Cooper C., 81 A.D.3d 643, 644, 915 N.Y.S.2d 863; Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d 868, 869, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424), and its determination is accorded great deference ( see Matter of Paul T., 107 A.D.3d 726, 727, 966 N.Y.S.2d 223; Matter of Donovan E., 92 A.D.3d 881, 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 515). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of directing an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see Family Ct. Act § 315.3; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d 1082, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694, 695, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231; Matter of Natasha G., 91 A.D.3d 948, 949, 937 N.Y.S.2d 616). The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense, the recommendation made in the probation report, the appellant's excessive absences at school, and his poor academic performance ( see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 A.D.3d at 1082, 966 N.Y.S.2d 464; Matter of Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d at 695, 961 N.Y.S.2d 231; Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d at 869, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424; Matter of Cindy A., 31 A.D.3d 440, 817 N.Y.S.2d 662). RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.