In re Tychen L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tychen L.

33 A.D.3d 359, 821 N.Y.S.2d 459

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 359 (In re Tychen L.) 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 Tychen L., 33 A.D.3d 359, 821 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant appellant an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The underlying facts were serious and there are no compelling circumstances warranting a disposition not involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication. The record establishes that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (Matter of Katherine W, 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J. E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant appellant an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The underlying facts were serious and there are no compelling circumstances warranting a disposition not involving a juvenile delinquency adjudication. The record establishes that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (Matter of Katherine W, 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J. E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 359, 821 N.Y.S.2d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tychen-l-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack