| Matter of David Franklin M. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08461 [45 AD3d 596] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David Franklin M., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and SusanB. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
In related juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, theappeals are from (1) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.),under docket No. D-21535-05, dated September 20, 2006, which upon a fact-finding order of thesame court dated June 19, 2006, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committedacts, which if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of resisting arrest andobstruction of governmental administration in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and FamilyServices for a period of 12 months for placement with Leake and Watts, and (2) an order of thesame court, under docket No. D-11587-05/06, also dated September 20, 2006, which found thatthe appellant violated a condition of a term of probation previously imposed by the same court inan order of disposition dated November 2, 2005, vacated that order of disposition and placed theappellant in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for aperiod of 12 months for placement with Leake and Watts. The appeal from the order ofdisposition under docket No. D-21535-05 brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June19, 2006.
Ordered that the appeals from so much of the orders as placed the appellant in the custody ofthe New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months forplacement with Leak and Watts are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, asthe [*2]period of placement has expired (see Matter of Shanita V., 7 AD3d804 [2004]); and it is further,
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the arresting officers' testimony under docket No.D-21535-05 was not self-contradictory. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, thecourt's refusal to admit as impeachment evidence two reports written by the officers whichomitted certain details to which the officers testified at the fact-finding hearing does not warrantreversal. The reports were properly viewed "as simply . . . more abbreviatedaccount[s] of the incident than the testimony" (People v Nazario, 235 AD2d 435, 436[1997]).
There is no merit to the appellant's challenge to the order issued under docket No.D-11587-05/06B. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.