In re Antoine H.

• Decision Date: 01 February 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of ANTOINE H. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

915 N.Y.S.2d 869

81 A.D.3d 646

In the Matter of ANTOINE H. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 1, 2011.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen McGrath and Elina Druker of counsel), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Antoine H. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Sacco, J.), dated May 7, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding hearing of the same court dated March 25, 2010, made upon his admission, finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him on probation for a period of nine months.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and directing a nine-month period of probation instead of giving him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency case ( see Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d 868, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424 [2010]; Matter of Abel R., 77 A.D.3d 758, 759, 908 N.Y.S.2d 601; Matter of Aaron P., 72 A.D.3d 826, 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466), and the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first brush with the law ( see Matter of Uriah D., 74 A.D.3d 1194, 1195, 904 N.Y.S.2d 164; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 A.D.3d 963, 964, 898 N.Y.S.2d 516; Matter of Aaron P., 72 A.D.3d at 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466; Matter of Javed K., 57 A.D.3d 899, 900, 870 N.Y.S.2d 412). The record demonstrates that the Family Court gave careful consideration to whether placing the appellant on probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with his best interests and the need for protection of the community ( see Family Ct. Act § 352.2[2][a] ), and the disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the probation department's recommendation, the appellant's poor academic and attendance record, his incidents of misbehavior at school, and his failure to take responsibility for his actions as reflected by the probation...