In re Celina D.

Citation43 N.Y.S.3d 814,145 A.D.3d 1634,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08777
Parties In the Matter of CELINA D., A Person Alleged to be A Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent–Appellant. County of Monroe, Petitioner–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).
Decision Date23 December 2016
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Barbara E. Farrell, Attorney for The Child, Rochester, for RespondentAppellant.

Michael E. Davis, County Attorney, Rochester (Brett C. Granville of Counsel), for PetitionerRespondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In this juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, respondent appeals in appeal No. 1 from an order of disposition that placed her in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of one year. In appeal No. 2, respondent appeals from an order adjudicating her a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that she committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00[1] ). Preliminarily, inasmuch as the appeal from the order of disposition brings up for our review the underlying fact-finding order adjudicating her a juvenile delinquent (see Matter of Benjamin S.A., 302 A.D.2d 979, 979, 754 N.Y.S.2d 491, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 505, 763 N.Y.S.2d 811, 795 N.E.2d 37 ), the appeal from the fact-finding order in appeal No. 2 must be dismissed (see Matter of Robert M., 71 A.D.3d 896, 896–897, 896 N.Y.S.2d 456 ).

With respect to appeal No. 1, respondent contends that her admission to the underlying act was defective because Family Court failed to comply with Family Court Act § 321.3(1). We note at the outset that, although respondent's period of placement has expired, her challenge to the admission is not moot " ‘because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency’ " (Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; see Matter of Gabriela A., 23 N.Y.3d 155, 161 n. 2, 989 N.Y.S.2d 624, 12 N.E.3d 1054 ). We further note that respondent was not required to preserve her contention for our review inasmuch as "the requirements of Family Court Act § 321.3 are mandatory and nonwaivable" (Matter of Dakota L.K., 70 A.D.3d 1334, 1335, 895 N.Y.S.2d 625 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We nonetheless conclude that respondent's contention lacks merit. The record establishes that, in its allocution with respondent and her mother, the court properly advised them of respondent's right to a fact-finding hearing, and the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Klossner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...a dark liquid that smelled of alcohol, and he saw an open 12–pack of beer in the backseat. There was an open can of chili in another 43 N.Y.S.3d 814cupholder in the console, and the officer noticed that chili was splattered on the dashboard. He returned to his vehicle and resumed traveling ......
  • People v. Mulcahey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...Oswego (Allison O'Neill of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.MEMORANDUM:145 A.D.3d 1634Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT