In re Derek B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Derek B.

267 A.D.2d 45, 700 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12671

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 45 (In re Derek B.) 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 Derek B., 267 A.D.2d 45, 700 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office for Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given appellant’s history of insufficient supervision at home, his arrest while on parole, and his escalating pattern of antisocial and disruptive behavior, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a non-secure facility. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the Family Court adopted the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office for Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given appellant’s history of insufficient supervision at home, his arrest while on parole, and his escalating pattern of antisocial and disruptive behavior, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a non-secure facility. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the Family Court adopted the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 45, 700 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-derek-b-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack