In re Anthony G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthony G.

82 A.D.3d 1235, 919 N.Y.2d 367

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1235 (In re Anthony G.) 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 Anthony G., 82 A.D.3d 1235, 919 N.Y.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition (see Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]; Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]). Here, in determining the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the appellant’s best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation for a period of 18 months with the condition that he perform 200 hours of community service. The disposition is appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the appellant’s offense, his record of truancy and poor school performance, and the recommendations in the probation report (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d at 1009; Matter of Javed K., 57 [1236]*1236AD3d 899, 900 [2008]; cf. Matter of Jonathan D., 33 AD3d 996, 997-998 [2006]). Florio, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition (see Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]; Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]). Here, in determining the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the appellant’s best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation for a period of 18 months with the condition that he perform 200 hours of community service. The disposition is appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the appellant’s offense, his record of truancy and poor school performance, and the recommendations in the probation report (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d at 1009; Matter of Javed K., 57 [1236]*1236AD3d 899, 900 [2008]; cf. Matter of Jonathan D., 33 AD3d 996, 997-998 [2006]). Florio, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1235, 919 N.Y.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthony-g-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack