In re Day-Shaun A.E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Day-Shaun A.E.

89 A.D.3d 1083, 933 N.Y.2d 588

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1083 (In re Day-Shaun A.E.) 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 Day-Shaun A.E., 89 A.D.3d 1083, 933 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1084]*1084“The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition” (Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d 1235, 1235 [2011]; see Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]). Here, in determining the least restrictive alternative consistent with the appellant’s best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation in the enhanced supervision program for a period of 24 months, with the condition that he perform 200 hours of community service (see Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d at 1235; Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d at 644). The disposition is appropriate for several reasons, including the seriousness of the appellant’s offense, his poor school attendance and performance, his home environment, the findings in the mental health services report, and the recommendations in the probation report (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]; Matter of Gabriel A., 12 AD3d 666, 667 [2004]). Florio, J.E, Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[1084]*1084“The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition” (Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d 1235, 1235 [2011]; see Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]). Here, in determining the least restrictive alternative consistent with the appellant’s best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant on probation in the enhanced supervision program for a period of 24 months, with the condition that he perform 200 hours of community service (see Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d at 1235; Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d at 644). The disposition is appropriate for several reasons, including the seriousness of the appellant’s offense, his poor school attendance and performance, his home environment, the findings in the mental health services report, and the recommendations in the probation report (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]; Matter of Gabriel A., 12 AD3d 666, 667 [2004]). Florio, J.E, Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1083, 933 N.Y.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-day-shaun-ae-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack