Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that on November 27, 1993, at 11:50 A.M., City of Beacon Police Officer Jose Rios was responding to a report that a female was calling for help from a building at 493 Main Street in Beacon. As Officer Rios exited his marked patrol car and entered the building, the 15-year old appellant ran out of the doorway, and pushed past the officer by striking him with both hands in the chest. Rios ordered the appellant to stop, but when he refused to do so, Rios grabbed his sweatshirt and a struggle ensued.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt of resisting arrest beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507, 508). The record supports the Family Court's conclusion that the appellant consciously resisted arrest and obstructed governmental administration when he committed the offense of harassment by striking a person whom he knew to be a police officer as the latter entered a building to investigate a call for help, and then by punching and kicking the officer, who had ordered him to stop (see, People v Karim, 176 A.D.2d 670, 671; People v Maturevitz, 149 A.D.2d 908; People v SiMartin, 135 A.D.2d 591). In addition, the offense of harassment, committed by the appellant in the officer's presence and indeed upon the officer himself, gave the officer ample probable cause to arrest the appellant (see, e.g., People v Knox, 38 N.Y.2d 865).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing the appellant in a secure facility for up to 12 months. In doing so, the court properly considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, his pattern of aggressive and violent behavior, his flight from a less-secure facility in the past, and his current urgent need for a structured environment, including educational tutoring and drug rehabilitation — as well as the community's need for protection against him (see, Matter of James D., 184 A.D.2d 769; Matter of Douglas R.S., 123 A.D.2d 868; see also, Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947; Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.