In re Curtis J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Curtis J.

192 A.D.2d 488, 597 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered April 13, 1992, which found appellant guilty of acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of possession of burglar’s tools, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based, inter alia, on appellant’s history of delinquency and his need for ongoing counseling services, the court was of the view that a period of supervision and treatment in excess of six months was needed, although it felt that confinement was not required and allowed the appellant to reside with his maternal grandmother. Thus, the court placed the appellant in the least restrictive alternative based on his needs (Matter of Dane L., 155 AD2d 543, 544; Matter of Raymond A., 136 AD2d 700, 701), and we perceive no abuse of discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered April 13, 1992, which found appellant guilty of acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of possession of burglar’s tools, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based, inter alia, on appellant’s history of delinquency and his need for ongoing counseling services, the court was of the view that a period of supervision and treatment in excess of six months was needed, although it felt that confinement was not required and allowed the appellant to reside with his maternal grandmother. Thus, the court placed the appellant in the least restrictive alternative based on his needs (Matter of Dane L., 155 AD2d 543, 544; Matter of Raymond A., 136 AD2d 700, 701), and we perceive no abuse of discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

In re Curtis J., 192 A.D.2d 488, 597 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

192 A.D.2d 488 (In re Curtis J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related