Matter of Denim M.
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 05408 (Matter of Denim 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.
Opinion
| Matter of Denim M. |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 05408 |
| Decided on October 31, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: October 31, 2024
Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Kapnick, Kennedy, JJ.
Docket No. D-00333-22 Appeal No. 2946 Case No. 2023-01803
Law Office of Bryan Greenberg, LLC, New York (Bryan Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (Jesse A. Townsend of counsel), for Presentment Agency.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2023, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a firearm, and placed him in a nonsecure facility for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Appellant failed to preserve his Second Amendment claim (see People v Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35, 42-51 [2023]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, appellant lacks standing to challenge the statute because he could not have applied for a firearm permit while under age 21 (see Penal Law § 400.00[1][a]; Matter of Gallagher v D.M., 225 AD3d 757, 758 [2d Dept 2024]). As an alternative holding, we reject his Second Amendment claim on the merits (see People v Slade, 228 AD3d 439, 439 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 940 [2024]; People v Johnson, 225 AD3d 453, 455 [1st Dept 2024], lv granted 42 NY3d 939 [2024]).
Appellant's challenge to his disposition is moot because the placement has expired and has been superseded by an order on consent, which extended the placement for four additional months (see Matter of Donte E., 168 AD3d 406 [1st Dept 2019]). The subsequent order is unappealable because it was entered on consent (see Matter of Raven L., 105 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2013]) and is also moot. As an alternative holding, we find that the 18-month placement in a nonsecure facility was a provident exercise of discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 31, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 05408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-denim-m-nyappdiv-2024.