Opinion
06-14-2017
In the Matter of JOVAN B. (Anonymous), appellant.
Michael D. Carlin, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Megan E.K. Montcalm of counsel), for respondent.
Michael D. Carlin, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Megan E.K. Montcalm of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated July 6, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing him in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services for 18 months, less the period spent in detention pending disposition (see Matter of Jalen G., 104 A.D.3d 853, 853, 961 N.Y.S.2d 536 ). The record establishes that this disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the appellant and the needs of the community (see Family Ct. Act § 352.2[2][a] ), particularly in light of his failure to attend school, his running away from both his home and pre-disposition detention, his drug use, his need for drug and mental health treatment, his mother's inability to supervise him adequately, and the recommendations of the Mental Health Services psychologist and the Department of Probation (see Matter of Ryan G., 112 A.D.3d 712, 713, 976 N.Y.S.2d 399 ; Matter of Paul T., 107 A.D.3d 726, 727, 966 N.Y.S.2d 223 ; Matter of Jalen G., 104 A.D.3d at 853–854, 961 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; Matter of Jesse F.J., 83 A.D.3d 710, 711, 919 N.Y.S.2d 897 ).
The appellant's arguments that the Family Court should have dismissed the petition or substituted a person in need of supervision adjudication for the juvenile delinquency adjudication are not properly before this Court (see Family Ct. Act §§ 311.4[2] ; 315.2[3]; Matter of Calvin C., 113 A.D.3d 678, 678, 978 N.Y.S.2d 687 ).