| Matter of Calvin L. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03068 [83 AD3d 842] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Calvin L., Appellant. |
—[*1] 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, Calvin L.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated July26, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 29, 2010, finding, uponhis admission, that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for aperiod of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review thefact-finding order dated April 29, 2010.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretionin adjudging the appellant a juvenile delinquent, finding that he was in need of supervision, anddirecting his placement for a period of 12 months with the Office of Children and FamilyServices instead of continued placement with the Westchester County Department of SocialServices (hereinafter the Westchester County DSS), as was recommended by the Department ofProbation. Considering the serious nature of the act which the appellant admitted, his failure toaccept responsibility or show remorse for the underlying conduct or for the victims, his priorjuvenile delinquency adjudications, his poor school attendance record, and the other relevantcircumstances, the Family Court properly found that the least restrictive dispositional alternativewas to place the appellant in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services (see Matter of Erika R., 55 AD3d740 [2008]; Matter of LeonardJ., 67 AD3d 911 [2009]).
Continued placement with the Westchester County DSS was not mandated on the basis thatit was recommended by the Department of Probation, as "[t]he Family Court is not bound tofollow any recommendations submitted for its consideration" (Matter of Erika R., 55AD3d at 740). Here, the Family Court considered the recommendation of the ProbationDepartment and then providently exercised its discretion in determining that a differentdisposition was warranted.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.