In re Tafari M.

90 A.D.3d 1052, 934 N.Y.2d 852
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1052 (In re Tafari M.) 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 Tafari M., 90 A.D.3d 1052, 934 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Despite the fact that the term of the appellant’s conditional discharge has already expired, there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency and, therefore, the appeal has not been rendered academic (see Matter of Isaiah I., 23 AD3d 469 [2005]; Matter of Ejiro A., 268 AD2d 428 [2000]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and directing a 12-month period of conditional [1053]*1053discharge instead of giving him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency case (see Matter of Antoine H., 81 AD3d 646 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868 [2010]; Matter of Abel R., 77 AD3d 758, 759 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 72 AD3d 826, 827 [2010]), and the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first brush with the law (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868 [2010]; Matter of Uriah D., 74 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2010]; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d 963, 964 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 72 AD3d at 827; Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d 899, 900 [2008]). The record demonstrates that the Family Court gave careful consideration to whether placing the appellant on conditional discharge was the least restrictive alternative consistent with his best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), and the disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the probation department’s recommendation, the seriousness of the appellant’s offense, and his failure to take responsibility for his actions as reflected by the probation report (see Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d 1235 [2011]; Matter of Uriah D., 74 AD3d at 1195; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d at 964; Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d at 900; Matter of Erika R., 55 AD3d 740 [2008]). Angiolillo, J.E, Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Joshua G.
2020 NY Slip Op 4163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Josue M.
2019 NY Slip Op 8194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Nijuel J.
2019 NY Slip Op 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Daniel M.
2019 NY Slip Op 279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Majesty S.
2018 NY Slip Op 8310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Andrew S.
2018 NY Slip Op 6544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Yaakov K.
2018 NY Slip Op 4725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Shalar N.
2018 NY Slip Op 4546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Dzahiah W.
2017 NY Slip Op 5612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Tanaja F.
2017 NY Slip Op 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Kieron C.
140 A.D.3d 1160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Nigel H.
136 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Mark G.
131 A.D.3d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Shyquan M.
115 A.D.3d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Thomas N.
113 A.D.3d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
NIAGARA FOODS, INC. v. FERGUSON ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
In re Tyriwali B.
106 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Antwaine T.
105 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Jesus S.
104 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Ashanti D.
100 A.D.3d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 1052, 934 N.Y.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tafari-m-nyappdiv-2011.