In re Cesar P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cesar P.

61 A.D.3d 595, 878 N.Y.S.2d 23

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

DecidedApril 28, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 595 (In re Cesar P.) 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 Cesar P., 61 A.D.3d 595, 878 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 11, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the seriousness of the offense, which involved injury to an assistant principal, as well as appellant’s poor performance in school and chronic truancy, the court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant on probation under the enhanced supervision program. This was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the need for protection of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Appellant’s, argument that the court should have granted him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 11, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the seriousness of the offense, which involved injury to an assistant principal, as well as appellant’s poor performance in school and chronic truancy, the court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant on probation under the enhanced supervision program. This was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the need for protection of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Appellant’s, argument that the court should have granted him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 595, 878 N.Y.S.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cesar-p-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack