Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

In re Antonio C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 7, 2002

294 A.D.2d 123; 741 N.Y.S.2d 520; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5306

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Anthony W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Anthony W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
In re Shaundale W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Monique R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Ellas A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Melissa B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re Jamel G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re Marie K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that the court’s placement of appellant on probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with his needs in light of his behavioral, attendance and academic problems at school performance, his association with older friends who were a negative influence and his mother’s *124inability to supervise him (see, Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). In these circumstances, the court’s determination that appellant required a period of supervision greater than the six months available under an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.