In re Jacob A.T., 428 CAF 14-01015

• Decision Date: 27 March 2015
• Docket Number: 428 CAF 14-01015
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02658,126 A.D.3d 1550,6 N.Y.S.3d 855
• Parties: In the Matter of JACOB A.T., Respondent–Appellant. Yates County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 1550

6 N.Y.S.3d 855

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02658

In the Matter of JACOB A.T., Respondent–Appellant. Yates County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).

428 CAF 14-01015

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

March 27, 2015.

Ardeth L. Houde, Attorney for the Child, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant.

Scott P. Falvey, County Attorney, Canandaigua (Hayden M. Dadd of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

In these three consolidated appeals, respondent appeals from three orders, each adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25 ), in appeal Nos. 1 and 2, and the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40), in appeal No. 3. After a dispositional hearing, Family Court placed respondent in the custody of the Yates County Department of Social Services (DSS) for a period of 12 months on each adjudication.

Respondent contends that the disposition placing him in the custody of DSS for one year is not the least restrictive disposition. It is well settled that, when determining an appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency case involving acts that are not felonies, “the court shall order the least restrictive available alternative” and “shall consider the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct. Act § 352.2[2][a] ; see generally Matter of Leporia L.L., 83 A.D.3d 1539, 1539, 922 N.Y.S.2d 674 ). Although “[t]he court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in juvenile delinquency cases” (Matter of Richard W., 13 A.D.3d 1063, 1064, 786 N.Y.S.2d 876 ), we agree with respondent that the court abused its discretion under the circumstances presented here. The evidence presented at the dispositional hearing and the predispositional and probation update reports prepared in conjunction with that hearing establish that respondent's home environment was “toxic” and he suffered from mental health issues that required treatment. In addition, the update to the original report indicated that respondent had recently been staying with a family friend who had known him since birth, that the friend had petitioned for custody of respondent, and that there had been no new arrests during that time. The update...