| Matter of Shakeim C. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05522 [97 AD3d 675] |
| July 11, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Shakeim C., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert Jay Greenfield, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the PresentmentAgency appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), dated June 2,2011, which granted that branch of Shakeim C.'s motion which was to dismiss the petition and,in effect, dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch ofShakeim C.'s motion which was to dismiss the petition is denied, the petition is reinstated, andthe matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the petition.
The respondent, Shakeim C., was charged with acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crimes of attempted gang assault in the first degree (Penal Law§§ 110.00, 120.07), assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), andmenacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15). In the supporting depositions thataccompanied the petition, two complainants alleged that they were attacked by a group ofteenaged boys, including the respondent and co-respondents Tevon F. and Daryus B.
In an order dated June 2, 2011, the Family Court granted that branch of the respondent'smotion which was to dismiss the petition and, in effect, dismissed the petition. The Family Courtconcluded that the petition did not "specify which complainant is the alleged victim in eachcount." Further, the Family Court stated "there is no separate accusation or count to address eachcrime charged." The Presentment Agency appeals, and we reverse.
"[A] petition is the sole instrument for the commencement, prosecution, and adjudication of[a] juvenile delinquency proceeding" (Matter of Detrece H., 78 NY2d 107, 110 [1991]),and it must include, among other things, "a plain and concise factual statement in each countwhich, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of thecrime charged and the respondent's commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearlyapprise the respondent of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation" (Family Ct Act§ 311.1 [3] [h]; see [*2]Matter of Christopher M., 94 AD3d 1119 [2012]; Matter of Edwin O., 91 AD3d 654[2012]). A petition is sufficient on its face when "the allegations of the factual part of thepetition, together with those of any supporting depositions which may accompany it, providereasonable cause to believe that the respondent committed the crime or crimes charged," and the"non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositionsestablish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof"(Family Ct Act § 311.2 [2], [3]; see Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632, 635 [1992];Matter of Michael Grudge M., 80AD3d 614 [2011]).
Here, contrary to the Family Court's determination, when the petition is read, as it must be,together with the supporting depositions, the petition satisfied the facial sufficiency requirementsof the Family Court Act (see Family Ct Act §§ 311.1 [1]; 311.2; Matterof Jahron S., 79 NY2d at 636, 638; Matter of Javen C., 57 AD3d 537, 538 [2008]; Matter ofJonathan T., 247 AD2d 482 [1998]). The petition and the supporting depositions providedreasonable cause to believe that the respondent committed the crimes with which he was chargedand contained nonhearsay allegations that established, if true, every element of the crimescharged and his commission thereof (see Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d at 636).Specifically, the alleged victims, the alleged perpetrators, and the crimes charged are clearlyidentified.
Accordingly, the Family Court should not have granted that branch of the respondent'smotion which was to dismiss the petition. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.