| Matter of Isaiah C. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04189 [118 AD3d 780] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Isaiah C., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement ofcounsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Deborah A. Brennerof counsel; Rebecca Hausner on the brief), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, IsaiahC. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky,J.), dated June 6, 2013, which, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court datedApril 22, 2013, made upon his admission, finding that he committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him onprobation for a period of 11 months.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed theappellant on probation for a period of 11 months is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that period of placement has expired; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
Despite the fact that the term of the appellant's probation has already expired, theremay be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency and,therefore, the appeal from the portion of the order of disposition that adjudged theappellant to be a juvenile delinquent has not been rendered academic (see Matter of Ashanti D., 100AD3d 886 [2012]; Matterof Natasha G., 91 AD3d 948 [2012]).
The Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders, and itsdetermination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Ryan G., 112 AD3d 712 [2013]; Matter of Eunique B., 73AD3d 764 [2010]; Matterof Ashanti B., 62 AD3d 790 [2009]). Here, the Family Court providentlyexercised its broad discretion in adjudicating the appellant a juvenile delinquent insteadof granting the appellant an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The dispositionwas appropriate in light of, inter alia, the seriousness of the incident which led to theappellant's adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, his subsequent arrest for a similarincident, his poor school attendance record, and the recommendation of the New YorkCity Department of Probation (see Matter of Antoine H., 81 AD3d 646 [2011]; Matter of Eunique B., 73AD3d 764 [2010]; cf.Matter of Jonathan M., 107 AD3d 805, 807 [2013]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Romanand Maltese, JJ., concur.