Matter of Thomas N.
2014 NY Slip Op 00362 [113 AD3d 778]
January 22, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 5, 2014


In the Matter of Thomas N., aPerson Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.—[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement ofcounsel), for appellant.

Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela SeiderDolgow and Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, ThomasN. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio,J.), dated February 6, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedNovember 20, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the second degree,adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12months.

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 Tafari M., 90 AD3d1052, 1053 [2011]; Matterof Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]), and itsdetermination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d 726, 727 [2013]; 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 andplacing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of directing an adjournmentin contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106AD3d 1082 [2013]; Matterof Jesus S., 104 AD3d 694, 695 [2013]; Matter of Natasha G., 91 AD3d 948, 949 [2012]). Thedisposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of theoffense, the recommendation made in the probation report, the appellant's excessiveabsences at school, and his poor academic performance (see Matter of TyriwaliB., 106 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter ofGustav D., 79 AD3d at 869; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440 [2006]). Rivera, J.P.,Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.