| Matter of Tafari M. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09646 [90 AD3d 1052] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tafari M., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and DrakeA. Colley of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Tafari M.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), datedDecember 20, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court (Weinstein, J.) datedJune 28, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed byan adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, adjudged him to bea juvenile delinquent, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months. The appealfrom the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Despite the fact that the term of the appellant's conditional discharge has already expired,there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency and,therefore, the appeal has not been rendered academic (see Matter of Isaiah I., 23 AD3d 469 [2005]; Matter of EjiroA., 268 AD2d 428 [2000]).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretionin adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and directing a 12-month period of conditionaldischarge instead of giving him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The Family Courthas broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency case (see Matter of Antoine H., 81 AD3d646 [2011]; Matter of GustavD., 79 AD3d 868 [2010]; Matter of Abel R., 77 AD3d 758, 759 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 72 AD3d 826,827 [2010]), and the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissalmerely because this was his first brush with the law (see Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868 [2010]; Matter of Uriah D., 74 AD3d1194, 1195 [2010]; Matter ofJonathan F., 72 AD3d 963, 964 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 72 AD3d at 827; Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d 899,900 [2008]). The record demonstrates that the Family Court gave careful consideration towhether placing the appellant on conditional discharge was the least restrictive alternativeconsistent with his best interests and the need for protection of the community (seeFamily Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), and the disposition was appropriate in light of, among otherfactors, the probation department's recommendation, the seriousness of the appellant's offense,and his failure to take responsibility for his actions as reflected by the probation report (see Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d1235 [2011]; Matter [*2]of Uriah D., 74 AD3d at1195; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d at 964; Matter of Javed K., 57 AD3d at900; Matter of Erika R., 55 AD3d740 [2008]). Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.