| Matter of Ryan G. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08243 [112 AD3d 712] |
| December 11, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ryan G., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
In two related juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article3, Ryan G. appeals from (1) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County(Bogacz, J.), dated February 21, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same courtdated January 2, 2013, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed an actwhich, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of grand larceny in thefourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody ofthe New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement in a limitedsecure facility for a period of 18 months under docket No. D-02320-12, and (2) an orderof disposition of the same court, also dated February 21, 2013, which, upon afact-finding order of the same court dated September 12, 2012, made upon his admission,finding that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of robbery in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children andFamily Services for placement in a limited secure facility for a period of 18 months underdocket No. D-17640-12, with credit for time spent in detention pending disposition.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (seeFamily Ct Act § 141; Matter of Leonard J., 67 AD3d 911 [2009]; Matter of Michael L., 64AD3d 780, 781 [2009]; Matter of Bruce B., 54 AD3d 1031 [2008]), and itsdetermination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d 726, 727 [2013]). Here,with regard to the two subject orders of disposition, the Family Court providentlyexercised its discretion in placing the appellant in the custody of the New York StateOffice of Children and Family Services for placement in a limited secure facility for aperiod of 18 months. The record establishes that the dispositions were the least restrictivealternative consistent with the best interests of the appellant and the needs of thecommunity (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), particularly in light of,inter alia, his need for structure, supervision, and therapeutic services, his history ofarrests and record of truancy, the findings in the mental health services report, and therecommendation in the probation report (see Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d at 727;Matter [*2]of Calvin L., 83 AD3d 842, 843 [2011]; Matter of Jesse F.J., 83 AD3d710, 711 [2011]; Matter of Bruce B., 54 AD3d at 1031-1032; Matter of Quamel J., 51 AD3d793, 794 [2008]; Matter ofJoseph B., 49 AD3d 1309 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.