In re Lance P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lance P.

10 A.D.3d 563, 781 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 563 (In re Lance P.) 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 Lance P., 10 A.D.3d 563, 781 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon appellant’s admission that he had committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[564]*564The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that a 12-month period of probation, and not an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, was the least restrictive alternative that would promote appellant’s needs and best interests while also protecting the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The court properly determined that probation supervision was warranted, particularly in view of the seriousness of appellant’s offense, which involved a purse-snatching with an accomplice actually present. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, 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 (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon appellant’s admission that he had committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[564]*564The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that a 12-month period of probation, and not an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, was the least restrictive alternative that would promote appellant’s needs and best interests while also protecting the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The court properly determined that probation supervision was warranted, particularly in view of the seriousness of appellant’s offense, which involved a purse-snatching with an accomplice actually present. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 563, 781 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lance-p-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack