Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re April FF.

In re April FF.

195 A.D.2d 860, 600 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 22, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 860 (In re April FF.) 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 April FF., 195 A.D.2d 860, 600 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court of Albany County (Maney, J.), entered September 17, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.

Respondent entered an admission to a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) petition, admitting before Family Court that she had been truant from school "on numerous occasions and is ungovernable at home”. After a dispositional hearing, the court adjudged respondent in need of supervision and determined that respondent’s best interest would be served by residential placement. She was placed in the care and custody of the Albany County Department of Social Services for one year.

On this appeal, respondent contends that Family Court abused its discretion in failing to impose the least restrictive alternative, i.e., probation, in disciplining her under Family Court Act § 352.2 (2) (a). The "least restrictive analysis” refers to orders of disposition in juvenile delinquency matters (see, Family Ct Act art 3). The instant matter was brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 7. Under the instant proceed[861]*861ing, Family Court is obliged to consider the needs and best interest of respondent as well as the need for protection of the community. The record indicates that Family Court’s exercise of its inherent discretion was appropriate. The court found that respondent was ineffectually controlled by her mother, that she is a school truant and that she is ungovernable (all of which she admitted) and that placement was necessary to motivate her to attend school regularly and to assist her in self-discipline to complete preparation for high school.

We find that Family Court substantially complied with the statute and affirm its amended order.

Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

In re John R.
84 A.D.3d 1384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Jessica C.
63 A.D.3d 1618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Draielle P.
47 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Ashlie B.
37 A.D.3d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Devan G.
35 A.D.3d 1121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Juarbe
194 Misc. 2d 77 (New York County Courts, 2002)
In re Brittany S.
298 A.D.2d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Justin H.
278 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Jeremy L.
220 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Lee V.
203 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D.2d 860, 600 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-april-ff-nyappdiv-1993.