Matter of Mark G.

131 A.D.3d 1057, 17 N.Y.S.3d 148
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2015
Docket2014-09739
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1057 (Matter of Mark G.) 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 Mark G., 131 A.D.3d 1057, 17 N.Y.S.3d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Michael Ambrosio, J.), dated September 24, 2014. The order, upon a fact-finding order of that court dated March 4, 2014, made upon Mark G.’s admission, finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, adjudicated Mark G. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and directing that he be placed on probation for a period of 12 months (see Family Ct Act §§ 315.3, 352.1, 352.2; Matter of Damien S., 124 AD3d 667, 669 [2015]; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d 1082, 1082-1083 [2013]). The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition (see Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d 1052 [2011]; Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d 1235 [2011]), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Leonard *1058 J., 67 AD3d 911, 912 [2009]; Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]). The disposition reflects a provident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case, which include the seriousness of the offense, the probation department’s recommendation, and evidence indicating the appellant’s continuing need for court-supervised therapy and treatment (see Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d at 1053; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d 963 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Josue M.
2019 NY Slip Op 8194 (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 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 Kieron C.
140 A.D.3d 1160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re Tyrone M.
138 A.D.3d 1119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 1057, 17 N.Y.S.3d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mark-g-nyappdiv-2015.