In re Justin A.

• Decision Date: 29 March 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02659,82 A.D.3d 1219,919 N.Y.S.2d 858
• Parties: In the Matter of JUSTIN A. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

82 A.D.3d 1219

919 N.Y.S.2d 858

In the Matter of JUSTIN A. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

March 29, 2011.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Linda D. Fakhoury of counsel), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Justin A. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Posner, J.), dated April 6, 2010, which, upon the appellant's admission, found that he violated a condition of a term of probation previously imposed by the same court in an order of disposition dated December 16, 2008, vacated the order of disposition dated December 16, 2008, and placed him in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the County of Dutchess for a period of up to 12 months, and (2) an order of detention of the same court, also dated April 6, 2010, which, upon the order of fact-finding and disposition, remanded the appellant to nonsecure detention pending his placement with the Commissioner of Social Services of the County of Dutchess.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition, and the order of detention, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was not properly arraigned on the petition alleging his violation of a condition of his term of probation ( see Matter of Nathaniel P., 58 A.D.3d 860, 861, 873 N.Y.S.2d 118;cf. People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13). In any event, the Family Court complied with the requirements of Family Court Act § 360.3(2) and § 360.3(4) applicable to the first appearance following the filing of the petition of violation.

The appellant further contends that the allocution during which he admitted the probation violation was defective. Contrary to this contention, the record establishes that the Family Court advised the appellant of his right to a fact-finding hearing and informed him of the possible specific dispositional orders, after which the appellant voluntarily waived his right to a hearing and voluntarily admitted the allegation in the violation petition, in satisfaction of all statutory requirements ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 321.3, 360.3[2]; Matter of William VV., 42 A.D.3d 710, 711–712, 839 N.Y.S.2d 614;Matter of John II., 31 A.D.3d 842, 842–843, 818 N.Y.S.2d 649).

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition ( see Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 903 N.Y.S.2d 146;Matter of Waleek W., 40 A.D.3d 868, 869, 836 N.Y.S.2d 258), and its determination is accorded great deference ( see Matter of Leonard J., 67...