In re Jose A. L.

• Citation: 106 A.D.3d 738,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03095,964 N.Y.S.2d 568
• Parties: In the Matter of JOSE A. L. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Decision Date: 01 May 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

106 A.D.3d 738
964 N.Y.S.2d 568
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03095

In the Matter of JOSE A. L. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

May 1, 2013.

[964 N.Y.S.2d 569]

Michael S. Bromberg, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.

Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Cental Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[106 A.D.3d 738]In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Jose A.L. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated March 1, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed Jose A.L. in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court found that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree by threatening the complainant in a voice mail message left on the cell phone of the complainant's husband, in violation of an order of protection.

The appellant contends that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing was legally insufficient to establish that he intentionally disobeyed the order of protection because the cell phone belonged to the complainant's husband and not to the complainant. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the appellant failed to raise this specific claim before the Family Court ( see Matter of Gilberto M., 89 A.D.3d 734, 931 N.Y.S.2d 889;Matter of Kalexis R., 79 A.D.3d 755, 756, 913 N.Y.S.2d 922;cf. People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see [106 A.D.3d 739]Matter of Ellius R., 97 A.D.3d 586, 587, 947...