In re Joshua C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joshua C.

65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 971 (In re Joshua C.) 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 Joshua C., 65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would [972]*972We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

The court properly exercised its discretion in directing appellant to pay restitution, and by providing that if appellant is unable to make restitution, he may then petition the lower court to rescind the restitution provision. The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record, which included a signed victim impact statement specifying the amount the victim paid to replace the stolen property. This evidence was material and relevant, and the court properly considered it at the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Nathan N., 56 AD2d 554 [1977]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick 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 (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would [972]*972We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

The court properly exercised its discretion in directing appellant to pay restitution, and by providing that if appellant is unable to make restitution, he may then petition the lower court to rescind the restitution provision. The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record, which included a signed victim impact statement specifying the amount the victim paid to replace the stolen property. This evidence was material and relevant, and the court properly considered it at the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Nathan N., 56 AD2d 554 [1977]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joshua-c-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack