Court Opinion

ID: 9877219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:50:42.413086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:19.695915
License: Public Domain

Lynch, J.
(concurring). We agree with the majority decision, but write to comment further as to the troubling nature of the delayed sentencing format. Significantly, the commitment order entered January 21, 2016 is open-ended, with no time limitation — a directive contrary to the statutory dispositions actually authorized in a Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding. More particularly, an order of protection may not extend beyond the order of disposition to which it relates (see Family Ct *847Act §§ 1052 [a] [iv]; 1056 [1]; 1058), an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal may not exceed a period of one year (see Family Ct Act § 1039 [b]), and an initial order of supervision may not exceed one year (see Family Ct Act § 1057). While we recognize that the delayed sentencing order was issued on consent, and was not appealed, in our view this format should not be utilized going forward.
Clark, J., concurs.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.