Matter of Roemaine Q.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Roemaine Q.

2017 NY Slip Op 6908, 154 A.D.3d 427, 60 N.Y.S.3d 812

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2017

Docket4573

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6908 (Matter of Roemaine Q.) 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 Roemaine Q., 2017 NY Slip Op 6908, 154 A.D.3d 427, 60 N.Y.S.3d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2017, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon *428 his admission that he committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, and placed him with the Administration for Children’s Services’ Close to Home program for a period of 12 months, unanimously modified, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of placing appellant on level three probation for a period of 18 months, nunc pro tunc to March 29, 2017, with the conditions that appellant comply with mental health services including individual and family therapy, anger management, and medication management at Harlem Hospital or an equivalent provider; that appellant comply with his individualized education plan, consistently attend a District 75 school, and avoid behavioral problems both at school and home; and that appellant continue to participate in positive social activities outside of school, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We recognize the seriousness of the underlying offense of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16. However, we note that the weapon here was a BB gun, and that the 13-year-old appellant did not use it to commit an act of violence. We conclude that the disposition indicated above, which is precisely the same as the presentment agency’s own recommendation at the dispositional hearing, is 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]), and we modify accordingly in the exercise of our discretion.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2017, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon *428 his admission that he committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, and placed him with the Administration for Children’s Services’ Close to Home program for a period of 12 months, unanimously modified, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of placing appellant on level three probation for a period of 18 months, nunc pro tunc to March 29, 2017, with the conditions that appellant comply with mental health services including individual and family therapy, anger management, and medication management at Harlem Hospital or an equivalent provider; that appellant comply with his individualized education plan, consistently attend a District 75 school, and avoid behavioral problems both at school and home; and that appellant continue to participate in positive social activities outside of school, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We recognize the seriousness of the underlying offense of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16. However, we note that the weapon here was a BB gun, and that the 13-year-old appellant did not use it to commit an act of violence. We conclude that the disposition indicated above, which is precisely the same as the presentment agency’s own recommendation at the dispositional hearing, is 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]), and we modify accordingly in the exercise of our discretion.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6908, 154 A.D.3d 427, 60 N.Y.S.3d 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-roemaine-q-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack