Matter of Xavier P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Xavier P.

2017 NY Slip Op 249, 146 A.D.3d 532, 43 N.Y.S.3d 898

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 2017·No. 2736·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about November 17, 2015, 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 second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation since this 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]), in light of the serious sex offense committed against a much younger child. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would not have ensured that, after its term expired, appellant remained in and satisfactorily completed an appropriate sex offender treatment program.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about November 17, 2015, 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 second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation since this 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]), in light of the serious sex offense committed against a much younger child. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would not have ensured that, after its term expired, appellant remained in and satisfactorily completed an appropriate sex offender treatment program.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Matter of Xavier P., 2017 NY Slip Op 249, 146 A.D.3d 532, 43 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 249 (Matter of Xavier P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related