Case Name: In the Matter of Leporia L.L., Appellant. Wayne County Attorney, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-04-29
Citations: 83 A.D.3d 1539
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Leporia L.L., Appellant. Wayne County Attorney, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 1539–1539

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Leporia L.L., Appellant. Wayne County Attorney, Respondent.
[922 NYS2d 674]

Opinion:
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered April 13, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, 120.05 [2]). After a dispositional hearing, Family Court placed respondent in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement in a limited secure facility (see Family Ct Act § 353.3 [3] [b]). Contrary to respondent's contention, "the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency . . . , is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition" (Matter of Zachary R.F., 37 AD3d 1073 [2007]; see Matter of Shakirrah C., 66 AD3d 1492 [2009]).
We reject respondent's further contention that the court failed to consider the least restrictive available alternative in placing him in a limited secure facility (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). "The court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in juvenile delinquency cases" (Matter of Richard W., 13 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2004]), and here the court did not abuse that discretion. Indeed, "the record establishes that the disposition ordered by the court is 'the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community' " (Matter of Brendon H., 43 AD3d 1283, 1284 [2007], quoting Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.