| Matter of Justin A. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02659 [82 AD3d 1219] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Justin A., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Linda D. Fakhoury of counsel),for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Justin A.appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County(Posner, J.), dated April 6, 2010, which, upon the appellant's admission, found that he violated acondition of a term of probation previously imposed by the same court in an order of dispositiondated December 16, 2008, vacated the order of disposition dated December 16, 2008, and placedhim in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the County of Dutchess for aperiod of up to 12 months, and (2) an order of detention of the same court, also dated April 6,2010, which, upon the order of fact-finding and disposition, remanded the appellant to nonsecuredetention pending his placement with the Commissioner of Social Services of the County ofDutchess.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition, and the order of detention, areaffirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was not properlyarraigned on the petition alleging his violation of a condition of his term of probation (seeMatter of Nathaniel P., 58 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]; cf. People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310,316 [2004]). In any event, the Family Court complied with the requirements of Family Court Act§ 360.3 (2) and (4) applicable to the first appearance following the filing of the petition ofviolation.
The appellant further contends that the allocution during which he admitted the probationviolation was defective. Contrary to this contention, the record establishes that the Family Courtadvised the appellant of his right to a fact-finding hearing and informed him of the possiblespecific dispositional orders, after which the appellant voluntarily waived his right to a hearingand voluntarily admitted the allegation in the violation petition, in satisfaction of all statutoryrequirements (see Family Ct Act §§ 321.3, 360.3 [2]; Matter of WilliamVV., 42 AD3d 710, 711-712 [2007]; Matter of John II., 31 AD3d 842, 842-843[2006]).
The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition (seeMatter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]; Matter of Waleek W., 40 AD3d868, 869 [2007]), and its [*2]determination is accorded greatdeference (see Matter of Leonard J., 67 AD3d 911, 912 [2009]; Matter of MichaelD., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion inplacing the appellant in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of up to12 months, and in remanding the appellant to nonsecure detention pending that placement. Underthe circumstances of this case, the disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent withthe best interests of the appellant and the needs of the community in light of, inter alia, theappellant's previous violation of a condition of probation and failure to comply with curfewmonitoring as well as the recommendations in reports prepared by the probation department, apsychiatrist, and a psychologist (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; Matter ofIsaiah Mc., 47 AD3d 717 [2008]; Matter of Donnell W., 36 AD3d 926 [2007];Matter of Benjamin J., 10 AD3d 608 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.