| Matter of David H. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07047 [88 AD3d 710] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David H., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andDeborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, David H.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), datedSeptember 29, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated August 19, 2010,made upon his admission, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult,would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree,adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of ninemonths.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant onprobation for a period of nine months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation fora period of nine months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Vanna W., 45 AD3d855 [2007]; Matter of SydneyN., 42 AD3d 539 [2007]; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]). However, becausethere may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, the appealfrom so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent, andwhich brings up for review the fact-finding order, has not been rendered academic (seeFamily Ct Act § 783; Matter of Dorothy D., 49 NY2d 212 [1980]).[*2]
The appellant's contention that his allocution wasdefective is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his admission onthat ground (see Family Ct Act § 321.4; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532 [2004]; Matter of BrandonS., 305 AD2d 609 [2003]). For the same reason, the appellant has not preserved hiscontention that his mother's allocution was defective (see Family Ct Act § 321.4;Matter of Nathaniel P., 58 AD3d860 [2009]). In any event, the allocution was proper, since the appellant voluntarily waivedhis right to a fact-finding hearing, and was made aware of the possible specific dispositionalorders prior to stating that he committed the act to which he was admitting (see Family CtAct § 321.3 [1]; Matter ofAlphonso W., 8 AD3d 492 [2004]; Matter of Marlene D., 285 AD2d 462[2001]).
The appellant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient also is unpreserved forappellate review (see Matter of RickyA., 11 AD3d 532 [2004]; seealso Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d 963 [2010]; Matter of Rosalis D., 305AD2d 407 [2003]; cf. People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]). In any event, theappellant's admission was legally sufficient to establish that he committed an act which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree (cf. Penal Law § 165.40). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Sgroi andMiller, JJ., concur.