| Matter of Melissa B. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01948 [49 AD3d 536] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Melissa B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart and MartaRoss of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated July 11, 2007,which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 4, 2007, made upon the appellant'sadmission, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juveniledelinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion as to the dispositional orders it enters. In this instance,the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating the appellant a juveniledelinquent and then placing her on probation for 12 months. Such an adjudication wasparticularly appropriate in view of her relatively poor record of attendance at school and therecommendation made in the probation report that she is in need of supervision. Moreover, theappellant in this case committed a type of misconduct that warrants a determination, at the least,that she was a juvenile delinquent. That this was her first brush with the law does not entitle herto an adjudication of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (hereinafter an ACD) (see Matter of Oneil D., 35 AD3d602 [2006]; Matter of Rosario S.,18 AD3d 563 [2005]; Matter ofNikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 500-501 [2004]).[*2]
We further note that an ACD is limited to a maximumperiod of six months. Thus, once the Family Court determined that a period of supervision longerthan six months was required, the entry of an ACD was no longer an option (see FamilyCt Act § 315.3 [1]; see Matter of Antonio C., 294 AD2d 123 [2002]; Matter ofRaymond A., 136 AD2d 700 [1988]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Carni andLeventhal, JJ., concur.