In re Wilbert L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wilbert L.

95 A.D.3d 568, 943 N.Y.S.2d 749

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

DecidedMay 10, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 568 (In re Wilbert 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 Wilbert L., 95 A.D.3d 568, 943 N.Y.S.2d 749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2011, 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 sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Enhanced supervision probation, which was recommended by the Probation Department, was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The underlying offense was a violent sexual attack. In addition, appellant had a poor disciplinary and attendance record at school, and admitted using marijuana and alcohol. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2011, 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 sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Enhanced supervision probation, which was recommended by the Probation Department, was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The underlying offense was a violent sexual attack. In addition, appellant had a poor disciplinary and attendance record at school, and admitted using marijuana and alcohol. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 568, 943 N.Y.S.2d 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wilbert-l-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack