Matter of Dwayne F.

Matter of Dwayne F. 2011 NY Slip Op 07128 Decided on October 11, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, JJ. 5657- 5658-
5659

[*1]In re Dwayne F., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Presentment Agency

 
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia
Egger of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman
Corenthal of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, with restitution in the amount of $500, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 3, 2011, which denied appellant's motion to modify the restitution amount, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly ordered appellant to pay restitution even though his allocution and admission did not include an agreement to pay restitution. Restitution is not a specific dispositional order, but is rather a condition that accompanies a specific disposition (see Family Ct Act § 353.6). In this case, the court imposed restitution as a condition of probation.

The court's calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record. This included a sworn statement by the victim that appellant's acts had rendered her cell phone incapable of normal operation, and that she had paid approximately $500 for the device. This evidence was material and relevant, and the court properly considered it at the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Nathan N., 56 AD2d 554 [1977]). Moreover, when appellant moved to modify the restitution order, the presentment agency responded with documentary proof of the device's replacement cost.

We have considered and rejected appellant's remaining arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 11, 2011 [*2]

CLERK