In re Besjon B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Besjon B.

99 A.D.3d 526, 951 N.Y.2d 868

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 526 (In re Besjon B.) 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 Besjon B., 99 A.D.3d 526, 951 N.Y.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The court improvidently exercised its discretion when it adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and imposed probation. This was not “the least restrictive available alternative” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have sufficed to serve the needs of appellant and society (see e.g. Matter of Tyvan B., 84 AD3d 462 [2011]).

Appellant was 11 years old at the time of the incident, which was his only conflict with the law. The circumstances of the assault were not particularly egregious. Although appellant’s school record had been unsatisfactory, it had greatly improved by the time of the disposition. An ACD with appropriate conditions would have provided adequate supervision, and the nine-month term of probation that the court imposed was unnecessary.

In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to discuss any of the other issues raised by appellant. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

The court improvidently exercised its discretion when it adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and imposed probation. This was not “the least restrictive available alternative” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have sufficed to serve the needs of appellant and society (see e.g. Matter of Tyvan B., 84 AD3d 462 [2011]).

Appellant was 11 years old at the time of the incident, which was his only conflict with the law. The circumstances of the assault were not particularly egregious. Although appellant’s school record had been unsatisfactory, it had greatly improved by the time of the disposition. An ACD with appropriate conditions would have provided adequate supervision, and the nine-month term of probation that the court imposed was unnecessary.

In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to discuss any of the other issues raised by appellant. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 526, 951 N.Y.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-besjon-b-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack