In the Matter of Melissa Vv., 97142.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | Crew Iii |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 01329,26 A.D.3d 682,809 N.Y.S.2d 307 |
| Parties | In the Matter of MELISSA VV., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. WILLIAM L. GIBSON, as Broome County Attorney, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | 97142. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 2006 |
WILLIAM L. GIBSON, as Broome County Attorney, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered October 14, 2004, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.
CREW III, J.
In May 2004, respondent entered an admission to an amended petition charging her with conduct that, if committed by an
adult, would constitute the crime of harassment in the first degree. Following a dispositional hearing, Family Court adjudicated respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her under the supervision of the local probation department for a period of six months. This appeal by respondent ensued.
We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the proof established that respondent indeed was in need of "supervision, treatment or confinement" (Family Ct Act § 352.1 [1]), we have no quarrel with Family Court's decision to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent. Having done so, Family Court then was required, upon the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, to order the "least restrictive available alternative" under Family Ct Act § 352.2 (1) that was consistent with both respondent's needs and best interests and the need for protection of the surrounding community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]).
Here, respondent argues that the least restrictive alternative consistent with her best interest was an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and, as such, Family Court erred in imposing the more restrictive placement of six months of supervision by the local probation department. This argument fails for two reasons. As a starting point, the relevant statutes and case law make clear that where, as here, Family Court has determined that the respondent requires supervision, treatment or confinement and, hence, has made an adjudication of delinquency, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal no longer is an option (see Family Ct Act § 315.3 [adjournment in contemplation of dismissal may be issued prior to a finding of delinquency under Family Ct Act § 352.1 (1)]; Matter of Edwin L., 88 NY2d 593, 600 [1996] ["an ACD may only be granted to a person who has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheney v. Cheney
...and, thus, defendant did not establish that he was entitled to modification of the support order ( see Matter of Freedman v. Horike, 26 A.D.3d at 682, 809 N.Y.S.2d 649; Nichols v. Nichols, 19 A.D.3d 775, 779, 797 N.Y.S.2d 139 [2005] ). Further, even if defendant had met this threshold requi......
-
In the Matter of Gordon B.
...see Family Ct. Act § 352.2[1]; § 352.2[2][a]; Matter of Austin Q., 63 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 879 N.Y.S.2d 828 [2009]; Matter of Melissa VV., 26 A.D.3d 682, 683, 809 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2006] ). [83 A.D.3d 1168] ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered May 11, 2010 and June 14, 2010 are dismis......
-
In the Matter of Clarence D.
...confinement” (Family Ct. Act § 352.1[1]; see Matter of Orazio A., 81 A.D.3d 1104, 1106, 916 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2011]; Matter of Melissa VV., 26 A.D.3d 682, 683, 809 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2006] ). Respondent also challenges his placement, but it has been rendered moot by the expiration of the disposition......
-
In the Matter of Sheenah C.
...L. at 601–602, 648 N.Y.S.2d 850, 671 N.E.2d 1247; Matter of Janay P., 11 A.D.3d 697, 783 N.Y.S.2d 293 [2004]; Matter of Melissa VV., 26 A.D.3d 682, 683, 809 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2006] ).3 [896 N.Y.S.2d 673] Where there is cause to believe that a juvenile has violated one or more of the terms and c......