In re Edwin R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Edwin R.

276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10626

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 378 (In re Edwin R.) 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 Edwin R., 276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about January 20, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted assault in the second degree, and placed [379]*379him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the court’s placement of appellant on probation for 12 months was the least restrictive alternative consistent with his needs and the need for protection of the community, in view of the nature of the offense, appellant’s poor school attendance and performance, and his involvement in a physical altercation while attending the Alternatives to Detention program during the pendency of this matter (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, 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 January 20, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted assault in the second degree, and placed [379]*379him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the court’s placement of appellant on probation for 12 months was the least restrictive alternative consistent with his needs and the need for protection of the community, in view of the nature of the offense, appellant’s poor school attendance and performance, and his involvement in a physical altercation while attending the Alternatives to Detention program during the pendency of this matter (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 67, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edwin-r-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack