Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

In re Cooper C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 1, 2011

81 A.D.3d 643; 915 N.Y.S.2d 863

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Jesus S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Jesus S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Day-Shaun A.E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Matter of Joshua G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Majesty S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
In re Thomas N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Thomas N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Shyquan M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Shyquan M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Tyriwali B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Tyriwali B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Cooper C. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated April 9, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 23, 2009, made upon his admission, finding *644that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 141; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 72 AD3d 826, 827 [2010]; Matter of Summer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]). Here, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that a period of two years of probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of the appellant and the need to protect the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), particularly in light of the nature of the incident (see Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d at 1076; Matter of Erika R., 55 AD3d 740 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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