| Matter of Thomas D. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03453 [50 AD3d 897] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Thomas D., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz andThomas G. Gardiner 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, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), enteredMarch 23, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court entered April 19, 2006, madeafter a hearing, finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent and, among other things, placed him on probation for a period of 15 months.The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order entered April 19, 2006.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfiedthat the court's findings were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Rony D., 34 AD3d801 [2006]; Matter of Nikkia C., 187 AD2d 581, 582 [1992]).
Moreover, the appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29 AD3d996, 998 [2006]; Matter of RobertP., 16 AD3d 512, 513 [2005]).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly chose not to direct anadjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3), but rather,to adjudge the appellant to be a juvenile delinquent (see Family Ct Act § 352.1).The appellant was not entitled to [*2]an adjournment incontemplation of dismissal merely because this was his " 'first brush with the law,' or in light ofthe other mitigating circumstances that [he] cites" (Matter of Nikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501 [2004], citing Matter ofSteven R., 230 AD2d 745 [1996]). The disposition was appropriate in light of, inter alia, thenature of the incident and the recommendations made in the probation report (see Matter of Oneil D., 35 AD3d602 [2006]; Matter of JulissaR., 30 AD3d 526, 528 [2006]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline toreview them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Angiolilloand Balkin, JJ., concur.