| Matter of Ashley D. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07661 [55 AD3d 605] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ashley D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and NormanCorenthal of counsel; Casey J. Plant on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from anorder of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated January 29, 2008, which,upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 11, 2007, made upon the appellant'sadmission, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of assault in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and placedher on probation for a period of 15 months subject to certain conditions, including a prohibition oncomputer use for other than educational purposes.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant admitted that she had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of assault in the third degree. At the time of the allocution, the Family Court waspresented with documents establishing that the appellant had violated a condition imposed on herinterim release by using "MySpace" and attempting to change her photo and location to avoiddiscovery. In addition, the presentment agency demonstrated during the dispositional hearing that theappellant had bragged of her conduct on her "MySpace" site and had placed a link on that site to avideo of the assault that had been posted by a third party on "YouTube," all in violation of the FamilyCourt's [*2]earlier order.
The Family Court has broad discretion as to the dispositional orders it enters (see Matter of Melissa B., 49 AD3d536 [2008]; Matter of Naiquan T., 265 AD2d 331 [1999]; Family Ct Act § 141)and great deference is given to the court's determination (see Matter of Stephone M.H., 11 AD3d 464, 465 [2004]). Thatdiscretion includes the authority to impose conditions of probation that are reasonably related torehabilitation (see Family Ct Act § 353.2 [2] [h]; Penal Law § 65.10 [2][l]; [5]; People v Letterlough, 86 NY2d 259, 264-265 [1995]). In the circumstancespresented here, the Family Court providently exercised that discretion in adjudicating the appellant ajuvenile delinquent and then placing her on probation for a period of 15 months, subject to certainconditions, including a prohibition on computer use for other than educational purposes. Spolzino, J.P.,Florio, Miller and Leventhal, JJ., concur.