Summary
In Matter of Ejiro A. (268 AD2d 428 [2000]) and Matter of Jens P. (159 AD2d 707 [1990]), the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the petitions and ordered the court records expunged even though it was clear that the respondents were not completely innocent.
Summary of this case from In re Emily P.Opinion
Argued December 7, 1999
January 27, 2000
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lauria, J.), dated September 22, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated August 19, 1998, made upon the appellant's admission, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated August 19, 1998.
Malvina Nathanson, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel; David Schechtman on the brief), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the fact-finding order is vacated, the petition is dismissed, and the appellant's record is sealed pursuant to Family Court Act § 375.1 Fam. Ct. Act.
Despite the fact that the appellant's term of probation has already expired, there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, and therefore the appeal has not been rendered academic ( see, Matter of Denise M.W., 122 A.D.2d 556; Matter of Erik P., 42 A.D.2d 908; see also, Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212).
There was insufficient evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant was in need of supervision, treatment, or confinement. Consequently, the petition should have been dismissed ( see, Matter of Kyung C., 169 A.D.2d 721; Matter of Jens P., 159 A.D.2d 707; Family Ct. Act § 352.1 Fam. Ct. Act[2]).
We note that expungement of the appellant's records pursuant to Family Court Act § 375.1 Fam. Ct. Act is appropriate.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.