In re Khaled S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Khaled S.

283 A.D.2d 197, 724 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4812

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The disposition was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The offense was fairly serious and there are no compelling circumstances warranting a disposition not involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication (see, Matter of Carlief V., 121 AD2d 640; compare, Matter of Deborah C., 261 AD2d 138). The factors cited by appellant were all taken into consideration in imposing a conditional discharge, the least restrictive disposition consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The disposition was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The offense was fairly serious and there are no compelling circumstances warranting a disposition not involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication (see, Matter of Carlief V., 121 AD2d 640; compare, Matter of Deborah C., 261 AD2d 138). The factors cited by appellant were all taken into consideration in imposing a conditional discharge, the least restrictive disposition consistent with appellant’s needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

In re Khaled S., 283 A.D.2d 197, 724 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 197 (In re Khaled S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related