In re Julio J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Julio J.

104 A.D.3d 404, 959 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 404 (In re Julio J.) 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 Julio J., 104 A.D.3d 404, 959 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2012, which, upon appellant’s admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the Office of Child and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement, which constituted the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection, was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [405]*405[1984]). The disposition was justified by the seriousness of appellant’s current offense, as well as his prior and subsequent offenses. In addition, appellant was noncompliant with treatment, and his academic performance, attendance and behavior at school were very poor. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2012, which, upon appellant’s admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the Office of Child and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement, which constituted the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection, was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [405]*405[1984]). The disposition was justified by the seriousness of appellant’s current offense, as well as his prior and subsequent offenses. In addition, appellant was noncompliant with treatment, and his academic performance, attendance and behavior at school were very poor. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 404, 959 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-julio-j-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack