In re Jason L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jason L.

246 A.D.2d 444, 668 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 417

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 20, 1996, which, inter alia, placed appellant with the New York State Division for Youth, in a nonsecure facility, for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on appellant’s larcenous conduct, his history of truancy, drug use, behavioral problems, and fighting in school, the recommendations submitted by the evaluating psychiatrist and the Probation Department that appellant was in need of placement in a structured environment, as well as the failure of petitioner’s mother to exercise a suitable degree of control over appellant, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a nonsecure 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—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, 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 December 20, 1996, which, inter alia, placed appellant with the New York State Division for Youth, in a nonsecure facility, for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on appellant’s larcenous conduct, his history of truancy, drug use, behavioral problems, and fighting in school, the recommendations submitted by the evaluating psychiatrist and the Probation Department that appellant was in need of placement in a structured environment, as well as the failure of petitioner’s mother to exercise a suitable degree of control over appellant, the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a nonsecure 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—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

In re Jason L., 246 A.D.2d 444, 668 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

246 A.D.2d 444 (In re Jason L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related