Matter of Jovan B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jovan B.

2017 NY Slip Op 4831, 151 A.D.3d 842, 56 N.Y.S.3d 567

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

DecidedJune 14, 2017

Docket2016-07561

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4831 (Matter of Jovan B.) 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

Matter of Jovan B., 2017 NY Slip Op 4831, 151 A.D.3d 842, 56 N.Y.S.3d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 6, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing him in the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition (see Matter of Jalen G., 104 AD3d 853, 853 [2013]). The record establishes that this disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the appellant and the needs of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), particularly in light of his failure to attend school, his running away from both his home and pre-disposition detention, his drug use, his need for drug and mental health treatment, his mother’s inability to supervise him adequately, and the recommendations of the Mental Health Services psychologist and the Department of Probation (see Matter of Ryan G., 112 AD3d 712, 713 [2013]; Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d 726, 727 [2013]; Matter of Jalen G., 104 AD3d at 853-854; Matter of Jesse F.J., 83 AD3d 710, 711 [2011]).

The appellant’s arguments that the Family Court should have dismissed the petition or substituted a person in need of supervision adjudication for the juvenile delinquency adjudication are not properly before this Court (see Family Ct Act §§ 311.4 [2]; 315.2 [3]; Matter of Calvin C., 113 AD3d 678, 678 [2014]).

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 6, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing him in the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition (see Matter of Jalen G., 104 AD3d 853, 853 [2013]). The record establishes that this disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the appellant and the needs of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), particularly in light of his failure to attend school, his running away from both his home and pre-disposition detention, his drug use, his need for drug and mental health treatment, his mother’s inability to supervise him adequately, and the recommendations of the Mental Health Services psychologist and the Department of Probation (see Matter of Ryan G., 112 AD3d 712, 713 [2013]; Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d 726, 727 [2013]; Matter of Jalen G., 104 AD3d at 853-854; Matter of Jesse F.J., 83 AD3d 710, 711 [2011]).

The appellant’s arguments that the Family Court should have dismissed the petition or substituted a person in need of supervision adjudication for the juvenile delinquency adjudication are not properly before this Court (see Family Ct Act §§ 311.4 [2]; 315.2 [3]; Matter of Calvin C., 113 AD3d 678, 678 [2014]).

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4831, 151 A.D.3d 842, 56 N.Y.S.3d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jovan-b-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack