In re Emmanuel J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Emmanuel J.

98 A.D.3d 895, 950 N.Y.S.2d 706

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A.D.3d 895 (In re Emmanuel J.) 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 Emmanuel J., 98 A.D.3d 895, 950 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation rather than granting him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Probation was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). A longer period of supervision than an ACD would have provided was justified by appellant’s chronic truancy and poor academic performance, which continued after he was placed in intensive case management, along with his unsatisfactory performance when offered an opportunity for adjustment of his case. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation rather than granting him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Probation was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). A longer period of supervision than an ACD would have provided was justified by appellant’s chronic truancy and poor academic performance, which continued after he was placed in intensive case management, along with his unsatisfactory performance when offered an opportunity for adjustment of his case. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.3d 895, 950 N.Y.S.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-emmanuel-j-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack