You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE, RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION; PETITION DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined a juvenile, Nigel H, who admitted committing what would constitute a misdemeanor arson offense, should have been granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal as the least restrictive sentencing alternative. The period of probation should not have been imposed. Because the probation term had expired, the court dismissed the petition, noting the potential consequences of a record of the offense:

 

The Family Court was required to impose the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of Nigel H. and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2[2][a]). This “least restrictive available alternative” requirement compels the Family Court to balance the needs of the juvenile and the need for the protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2[2][a]…).

… [T]he least restrictive dispositional alternative available to the Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding was the imposition of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Family Court Act § 315.3(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is an adjournment of the proceeding, for a period not to exceed six months, with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice.” Permissible terms and conditions of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal may include “supervision by the probation service” (Family Ct Act § 315.3[2]). * * *

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing a period of probation. Given Nigel H.’s many positive characteristics, his lack of prior criminal or behavioral issues, the services and support he is already receiving as a result of his placement in foster care, and the minimal risk that he poses to the community, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Nigel H., 2016 NY Slip Op 01326, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/JUVENILES (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)/SENTENCING (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION)

You might also like
Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted
BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL IN THE THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING, AFTER RELIEVING FATHER’S PRIOR COUNSEL, VIOLATED FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
City’s Possession of Property Seized Upon Arrest, But Which Was No Longer Needed by the People in Connection with the Case, Was Held by the City as a Bailee—the Bailment Did Not Originate in a Contractual Relationship—Therefore the One-Year-Ninety-Days General Municipal Law Statute of Limitations, Not the Six-Year Contract Statute of Limitations, Applied—Action Was Time-Barred
HERE SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THERE WAS “GOOD CAUSE SHOWN” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND THE EXTENSION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BEFORE THE TRAVERSE HEARING ON THE INITIAL ATTEMPT AT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONVERSION THEORY DOES NOT APPLY TO REAL ESTATE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING...