In re Ramon B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ramon B.

83 A.D.3d 623, 920 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedApril 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 623 (In re Ramon B.) 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 Ramon B., 83 A.D.3d 623, 920 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about July 8, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the term of probation to 12 months, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Given the underlying offense and favorable aspects of appellant’s background, we conclude that a 12-month period of probation would be the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and best interests and the community’s need for protection. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, 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 July 8, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the term of probation to 12 months, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Given the underlying offense and favorable aspects of appellant’s background, we conclude that a 12-month period of probation would be the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and best interests and the community’s need for protection. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 623, 920 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ramon-b-nyappdiv-2011.