In re Francisco P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Francisco P.

16 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 360 (In re Francisco P.) 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 Francisco P., 16 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 23, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted robbery in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[361]*361The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure facility. The record establishes that this was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Appellant exhibited an escalating pattern of serious misconduct, and the court followed the recommendations contained in a thorough report from a psychologist. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 23, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted robbery in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[361]*361The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure facility. The record establishes that this was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Appellant exhibited an escalating pattern of serious misconduct, and the court followed the recommendations contained in a thorough report from a psychologist. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 360, 791 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-francisco-p-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack