In re Gerald W.

12 A.D.3d 522, 784 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 522 (In re Gerald W.) 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 Gerald W., 12 A.D.3d 522, 784 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 3, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, placed him on probation for 12 months and directed that he perform 150 hours of [523]*523community service. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 3, 2004.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing him on probation and directing him to perform community service, particularly in view of the nature of the incident, the appellant’s poor record of performance in school, and the recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Diana V., 297 AD2d 535 [2002]; Matter of Christian G., 287 AD2d 299, 300 [2001]; Matter of Steven R., 230 AD2d 745 [1996]; Matter of Christopher B., 229 AD2d 390 [1996]). Moreover, the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first “brush with the law” (Matter of Nikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501 [2004]; see Matter of Steven R., supra). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Gabriel C.
90 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Liston J.
81 A.D.3d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Javed K.
57 A.D.3d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Tegure J.
51 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Kimaya Mc.
51 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Michael E.
48 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Oneil D.
35 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Jonathan D.
33 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Cesar E.
32 A.D.3d 1024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Matter of Gary B.
2006 NY Slip Op 50852(U) (Queens Family Court, 2006)
In re Isaiah I.
23 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Steven L.
21 A.D.3d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Rosario S.
18 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 522, 784 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gerald-w-nyappdiv-2004.