Matter of Eunique B.
2010 NY Slip Op 03919 [73 AD3d 764]
May 4, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010


In the Matter of Eunique B., Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), forappellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and RonaldE. Sternberg 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 June 29, 2009,which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 15, 2009, made upon theappellant's admission, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of two years.The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 15, 2009.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (see Matter of Ashanti B., 62 AD3d790 [2009]; Matter of AriellC., 54 AD3d 1034 [2008]; Matter of Bruce B., 54 AD3d 1031 [2008]). "That discretionincludes the authority to impose conditions of probation that are reasonably related torehabilitation" (Matter of AshleyD., 55 AD3d 605, 606 [2008]; see Family Ct Act § 353.2 [2] [h]; PenalLaw § 65.10 [2], [5]; People v Letterlough, 86 NY2d 259 [1995]). The FamilyCourt's determination must be accorded great deference (see Matter of Leonard J., 67 AD3d 911 [2009]; Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d945 [2009]).

Here, the disposition was appropriate in light of, inter alia, the seriousness and ongoingnature of the incidents which led to the appellant's adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, as wellas the recommendations made in the probation report and the mental health services report (see Matter of Julissa R., 30 AD3d526, 528 [2006]; Matter of MichaelE., 48 AD3d 810, 811 [2008]).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin,JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.