Matter of Paul C.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Paul C. 2004 NY Slip Op 01776 [5 AD3d 592] March 15, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 26, 2004

In the Matter of Paul C., Jr., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated January 6, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding order of same court (Pearce, J.), dated July 29, 2002, made upon the appellant's admission, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period not to exceed 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant argues that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in placing him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period not to exceed 12 months because it was not the least restrictive available alternative (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]). However, that argument has been rendered academic by the expiration of the 12-month period of placement (see Matter of Shamasia M., 4 AD3d 389 [2004]; Matter of Adonnica L., 1 AD3d 599, 600 [2003]). In any event, the argument is without merit. The Family Court's determination demonstrated that it carefully considered less restrictive alternatives to placement and balanced the needs of the appellant with the need for the protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Shea K., 308 AD2d 586 [2003]; Matter of Akeem F., 301 AD2d 650 [2003]; Matter of Tristan W., 258 AD2d 585 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.