| Matter of Tyriwali B. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03833 [106 AD3d 1082] |
| May 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tyriwali B., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo,Elizabeth I. Freedman, and Moon Choi of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, TyriwaliB. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath,J.), dated September 21, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedJuly 12, 2012, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degree,adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and, inter alia, placed him on probation for aperiod of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review thefact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in ajuvenile delinquency proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 141; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d694 [2013]; Matter ofTafari M., 90 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2011]; Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d868, 869 [2010]), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Donovan E., 92AD3d 881, 882 [2012]). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the FamilyCourt providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and,inter alia, placing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of directing anadjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d694 [2013]; Matter ofNatasha G., 91 AD3d 948, 949 [2012]). The appellant was not entitled to anadjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first encounterwith the law, or in light of the other mitigating circumstances that he cites (see Matter of Ashanti D., 100AD3d 886, 887 [2012]; Matter of Natasha G., 91 AD3d at 949). Thedisposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of theoffense and the recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Jesus S., 104AD3d 694 [2013]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869). Rivera, J.P.,Balkin, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.