In re Rosemary R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosemary R.

29 A.D.3d 309, 813 N.Y.S.2d 300

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 309 (In re Rosemary R.) 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 Rosemary R., 29 A.D.3d 309, 813 N.Y.S.2d 300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.) entered on or about August 5, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent rather than a person in need of supervision (see Family Ct Act § 311.4), in view of such factors as the violent nature of the underlying incident and appellant’s misbehavior at home, truancy, substance abuse problems and association with violent gangs. Similarly, its placement of appellant was an appropriate exercise of discretion, constituting the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and those of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.) entered on or about August 5, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent rather than a person in need of supervision (see Family Ct Act § 311.4), in view of such factors as the violent nature of the underlying incident and appellant’s misbehavior at home, truancy, substance abuse problems and association with violent gangs. Similarly, its placement of appellant was an appropriate exercise of discretion, constituting the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and those of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 309, 813 N.Y.S.2d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosemary-r-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack