Matter of Hakeem F.

Matter of Hakeem F. 2012 NY Slip Op 00704 Decided on February 2, 2012 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 February 2, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
6697

[*1]In re Hakeem F., A Person Alleged tobe a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Presentment Agency


Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York
(Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kristin
M. Helmers of counsel), for presentment agency.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2010, 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 menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs, the juvenile delinquency adjudication and conditional discharge vacated and the petition dismissed.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in finding appellant to be a juvenile delinquent. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have been the least restrictive alternative (see e.g. Matter of Anthony M., 47 AD3d 434 [2008]). The record reflects that appellant came from a stable home environment, that he had no prior history of criminality, that this incident was his first contact with the juvenile justice system, and that his misconduct did not involve weapons, violence, or injury. Further, there was no indication that appellant ever used drugs or alcohol or was affiliated with a gang. Appellant accepted full responsibility for his offense and demonstrated sincere remorse and insight into his misconduct. While appellant would have benefitted from monitoring with regard to his attendance at school and his academic [*2]performance, this could have been provided for in the terms and conditions of an ACD.

Since the period of the conditional discharge has now expired, we dismiss the petition.

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2012

CLERK