Matter of Thomas N.
2014 NY Slip Op 00362 [113 AD3d 778]
January 22, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 5, 2014


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

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

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Thomas N. 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 dated November 20, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, if committed 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 12 months.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 141; Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2011]; Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Paul T., 107 AD3d 726, 727 [2013]; Matter of Donovan E., 92 AD3d 881, 882 [2012]). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of directing an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d 1082 [2013]; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d 694, 695 [2013]; Matter of Natasha G., 91 AD3d 948, 949 [2012]). The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense, the recommendation made in the probation report, the appellant's excessive absences at school, and his poor academic performance (see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.