In re Abel A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Abel A.

37 A.D.3d 302, 828 N.Y.S.2d 890

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 302 (In re Abel A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Abel A., 37 A.D.3d 302, 828 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about January 20, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure facility for up to 18 months, which was the least restrictive alternative, consistent with the needs of appellant and the protection of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in light of appellant’s continuing pattern of serious misconduct. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about January 20, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure facility for up to 18 months, which was the least restrictive alternative, consistent with the needs of appellant and the protection of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in light of appellant’s continuing pattern of serious misconduct. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 302, 828 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-abel-a-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack