In re Charles B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles B.

288 A.D.2d 152, 733 N.Y.S.2d 184, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2001, which, inter alia, placed appellant in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, with the initial placement to be non-secure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of appellant’s larcenous conduct, his history of truancy, disruptive behavior problems, and the recommendation submitted by the evaluating psychiatrist that appellant was in need of placement in a structured environment, as well as appellant’s failure, while on parole, to cooperate with community-based programs, the court’s disposition was a proper exercise of discretion. We conclude that the court adopted the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Jason L., 246 AD2d 444). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2001, which, inter alia, placed appellant in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, with the initial placement to be non-secure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of appellant’s larcenous conduct, his history of truancy, disruptive behavior problems, and the recommendation submitted by the evaluating psychiatrist that appellant was in need of placement in a structured environment, as well as appellant’s failure, while on parole, to cooperate with community-based programs, the court’s disposition was a proper exercise of discretion. We conclude that the court adopted the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Jason L., 246 AD2d 444). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

In re Charles B., 288 A.D.2d 152, 733 N.Y.S.2d 184, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

288 A.D.2d 152 (In re Charles B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related