Matter of Jesse F.J.
2011 NY Slip Op 02880 [83 AD3d 710]
April 5, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011


In the Matter of Jesse F.J., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant.

[*1]Kelli M. O'Brien, Goshen, N.Y., for appellant.

David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Tina M. McCloud of counsel), forrespondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Jesse F.J.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), datedAugust 10, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 29, 2010, madeupon the appellant's admission, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted burglary in the thirddegree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him in the custody of the New YorkState Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months. The appeal from theorder of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 29, 2010.

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

The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (see Family CtAct § 141; Matter of MichaelD., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]; Matter of Daqwan J., 57 AD3d 780 [2008]). Contrary to theappellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing theappellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18months (see Matter of Manuel B.,34 AD3d 463 [2006]; Matter ofGabriel A., 12 AD3d 666 [2004]). In light of the recommendation in the probationreport, as well as the appellant's continuing behavioral issues, the Family Court's order was theleast restrictive available alternative which was consistent with the needs and best interests of theappellant and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2[2] [a]; Matter of Leah G., 23 AD3d658 [2005]).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin andSgroi, 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.