You are here: / / Disposition of Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding Reversed; Purpose Is Not...
,

Disposition of Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding Reversed; Purpose Is Not to Punish

Over a dissent, the First Department reversed Family Court’s juvenile delinquency disposition which was based on the findings that, had the juvenile been an adult, he would have been guilty of two counts of sexual abuse 2nd and two counts of forcible touching 3rd.  The First Department eliminated the 12-month period of probation and granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.  The juvenile was 13 years old at the time of the incident.  It was alleged the juvenile grabbed the 12-year-old complainant from behind by pulling on her backpack and, as she tried to get away, touched and squeezed her breasts and the right side of her buttocks.  He then tried to kiss her, ignored her when she said she needed to go to class, and demanded a hug in order to let her go.  The First Department noted that this was the juvenile’s first contact with the justice system, that he and his mother had been cooperative throughout, and that he was a good student (among other factors).  The court wrote:

…[T]the totality of appellant’s course of conduct, and his statements to the complaining witness, support the inference that he acted for the purpose of sexual gratification … . The court’s findings that appellant committed an act, that, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime, was, therefore, based on legally sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence … .

A juvenile delinquency adjudication, however, requires both a determination that the juvenile committed an act, that, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime and a showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the juvenile needs supervision, treatment or confinement (Family Ct Act §§ 345.1, 350.3, 352.1). Although the seriousness of the juvenile’s acts is an extremely important factor in determining an appropriate disposition …, it is not the only factor. The disposition is not supposed to punish a child as an adult, but provide effective intervention to “positively impact the lives of troubled young people while protecting the public” .. .

While the trial court properly found that appellant committed a delinquent act, there was insufficient support for its decision that appellant needed supervision, treatment or confinement (Family Ct Act §§ 352.1, 350.3). In addition, 12 months probation was not the least restrictive available alternative that would have adequately served the needs of appellant and society (Family Ct Act § 352.2…). Matter of Narvanda S, 2013 NY Slip Op 05855, 1st Dept 9-17-13

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; THE INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER GRAVE INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 11 (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to File Late Notice of Claim
DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR BEFORE AND DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP DID NOT CREATE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THE DEFENDANT WAS ARMED; THE FRISK AND SEIZURE OF SMALL PACKETS OF PCP FROM DEFENDANT’S SOCK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Action By Israeli Citizens Against Bank Which Allegedly Funded Groups that Committed... Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action Because...