| Matter of Javed K. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10165 [57 AD3d 899] |
| December 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Javed K., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel;Joshua Rog 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 April 8, 2008, which, upon afact-finding order of the same court dated March 5, 2008, made upon the appellant's admission, findingthat he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime ofattempted robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him onprobation for a period of 18 months.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion infinding that he was in need of supervision, adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent, and ordering an18-month period of probation instead of granting him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. TheFamily Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (see Matter of Yasin H., 31AD3d 638 [2006]; Matter of Jarel S., 282 AD2d 681 [2001]; Matter of Naiquan T.,265 AD2d 331 [1999]; Matter of Tristan W., 258 AD2d 585 [1999]; Family Ct Act §141). The Family Court's determination in entering dispositional orders is entitled to great deference, asit had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (seeMatter of Yasin H., 31 AD3d at 638; Matter of Stephone M.H., 11 AD3d 464, 465[2004]; Matter of Severn J., 250 AD2d 682, 683 [1998]). Here, the record demonstrates thatthe Family Court did "consider the needs and best interests of the [appellant] as well as the need forprotection of the community," and that the Family Court ordered[*2]"the least restrictive available alternative" which was consistent with suchneeds and interests (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). The nature of the incident, therecommendation by the Department of Probation, and the appellant's poor school performance andattendance record support the Family Court's determination (see Matter of Erika R., 55 AD3d740 [2008]; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440 [2006]; Matter of Gerald W., 12AD3d 522 [2004]). Moreover, the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation ofdismissal merely because this was his first "brush with the law" (see Matter of Melissa B., 49AD3d 536, 537 [2008]; Matter of Michael E., 48 AD3d 810 [2008]; Matter of OneilD., 35 AD3d 602 [2006]; Matter of Yasin H., 31 AD3d at 638; Matter of IsaiahI., 23 AD3d 469, 470 [2005]; Matter of Gerald W., 12 AD3d at 523; Matter ofNikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ.,concur.