| Matter of Leonard J. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08618 [67 AD3d 911] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Leonard J., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein andSharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal, aslimited by the appellant's brief, is from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court,Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated October 31, 2008, as, upon a fact-finding order of the samecourt dated September 16, 2008, made upon the appellant's admission, finding that he hadcommitted an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault inthe second degree, placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children andFamily Services for a period of 18 months, with a minimum of six months and with credit fortime served.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (see Matter of Michael L., 64 AD3d780, 781 [2009]; Matter of TremainM., 63 AD3d 742 [2009]; Matter of Karen M., 58 AD3d 734, 735 [2009]). The FamilyCourt's determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]; Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d 899,900 [2008]; Matter of Bruce B., 54AD3d 1031 [2008]). Considering the seriousness of the act which the appellant admitted,the recommendations of both the Department of Probation and Mental Health Services, theappellant's two prior school suspensions for the use or threatened use of force, the appellant'spoor attendance and performance in school, his failure to comply with the mandates of theSupreme Court and the Center for Community Alternatives while on supervised release pendingthe resolution of a juvenile offense charge, and the other relevant circumstances, the FamilyCourt properly found that the least restrictive dispositional alternative was the subject placement(see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; Matter of Terrance B., 40 AD3d 1083, 1085 [2007]; Matter of Shea McF., 33 AD3d801, 802 [2006]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo andAustin, JJ., concur.