In re Joan V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joan V.

50 A.D.3d 450, 856 N.Y.S.2d 66

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

DecidedApril 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 450 (In re Joan V.) 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 Joan V., 50 A.D.3d 450, 856 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute assault in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of nine months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a dismissal or an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and imposing a conditional discharge (see Matter of Jonaivy Q., 286 AD2d 645 [2001]), which, given the fact that the incident took place in a school and resulted in a serious injury to a fellow student, was the least restrictive alternative (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947, 948 [1984]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman 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 (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute assault in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of nine months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a dismissal or an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and imposing a conditional discharge (see Matter of Jonaivy Q., 286 AD2d 645 [2001]), which, given the fact that the incident took place in a school and resulted in a serious injury to a fellow student, was the least restrictive alternative (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947, 948 [1984]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 450, 856 N.Y.S.2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joan-v-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack