In re Calvin C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Calvin C.

113 A.D.3d 678, 978 N.Y.2d 687

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 678 (In re Calvin C.) 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 Calvin C., 113 A.D.3d 678, 978 N.Y.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Shaquary B., 110 AD3d 1065 [2013]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent has not been rendered academic (see Family Ct Act § 783; Matter of Darnell G., 106 AD3d 906, 906-907 [2013]; Matter of Christian E., 68 AD3d 1109 [2009]).

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Matter of Racheal M., 108 AD3d 770, 771 [2013]; Matter of W.E., 107 AD3d 988 [2013]; Matter of George R., 104 AD3d 949 [2013]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudging him to be a juvenile delinquent, since a preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s determination that he required “supervision, treatment or confinement” (Family Ct Act § 352.1 [1]; see Matter of Richard H., 99 AD3d 1005 [2012]; Matter of Janay P., 11 AD3d 697 [2004]).

The appellant’s contention that dismissal of the petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.2 is warranted is not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Shaquary B., 110 AD3d 1065 [2013]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent has not been rendered academic (see Family Ct Act § 783; Matter of Darnell G., 106 AD3d 906, 906-907 [2013]; Matter of Christian E., 68 AD3d 1109 [2009]).

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Matter of Racheal M., 108 AD3d 770, 771 [2013]; Matter of W.E., 107 AD3d 988 [2013]; Matter of George R., 104 AD3d 949 [2013]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudging him to be a juvenile delinquent, since a preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s determination that he required “supervision, treatment or confinement” (Family Ct Act § 352.1 [1]; see Matter of Richard H., 99 AD3d 1005 [2012]; Matter of Janay P., 11 AD3d 697 [2004]).

The appellant’s contention that dismissal of the petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.2 is warranted is not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 678, 978 N.Y.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-calvin-c-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack