Case Name: In the Matter of Mark G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-09-16
Citations: 131 A.D.3d 1057
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Mark G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 1057–1058

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Mark G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
[17 NYS3d 148]

Opinion:
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Michael Ambrosio, J.), dated September 24, 2014. The order, upon a fact-finding order of that court dated March 4, 2014, made upon Mark G.'s admission, finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, adjudicated Mark G. 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.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and directing that he be placed on probation for a period of 12 months (see Family Ct Act § 315.3, 352.1, 352.2; Matter of Damien S., 124 AD3d 667, 669 [2015]; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d 1082, 1082-1083 [2013]). The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning orders of disposition (see Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d 1052 [2011]; Matter of Anthony G., 82 AD3d 1235 [2011]), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Leonard J., 67 AD3d 911, 912 [2009]; Matter of Michael D., 60 AD3d 945 [2009]). The disposition reflects a provident exercise of discretion under the circumstances of this case, which include the seriousness of the offense, the probation department's recommendation, and evidence indicating the appellant's continuing need for court-supervised therapy and treatment (see Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d at 1053; Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d 963 [2010]).
Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.