Matter of Natasha G.
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 1, 2010
Family Court, Queens County
In the Matter of Natasha G., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.
D-21258/10
Counsel: Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel (Danielle M. Boccio of
counsel), New York City, for Presentment Agency. The Legal Aid Society
(Tamara Steckler and Lisa E. Tuntigian) attorney for respondent.
John M. Hunt, J.
This juvenile delinquency proceeding is before the Court for a dispositional
hearing subsequent to the Court's uncontested determination that the respondent, Natasha G.
(born
October 15, 1997), has committed acts which, were she an adult, would constitute the crimes of
Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree.
After accepting respondent's admission to two counts of the juvenile delinquency petition
the Court scheduled the case for a dispositional hearing. Pursuant to Family Court
Act §351.1 (2)
the Court directed that the New York City Department of Probation conduct an
investigation into
respondent's circumstances and that a written report be submitted at the dispositional
hearing
which was scheduled for December 1, 2010. The dispositional hearing commenced
on December
1, 2010 and the Department of Probation submitted its investigation report ("I & R")
along with
school records concerning the respondent, and victim impact statements which were
prepared by
[*2]
the staff of Safe Horizon which is a crime victims
advocacy agency (Fam. Ct. Act §352.1 [4]).
The written report of I & R prepared by the Department of Probation states that the
respondent resides in Jackson Heights along with her mother, stepfather and infant
brother. The
father of the respondent resides in Spain. According to the report, the incident
underlying the
juvenile delinquency petition occurred in Queens County on September 16, 2010
when the
respondent and one accomplice were involved in the theft of cell phones from two
victims.
According to the probation report, the respondent stated that "she regrets the instant
offense
because she did not mean to do it. She stated that it was not her intention to rob the
victims. She
stated that she ran away because her friend ran. She stated that she learned from this
experience
not to rob people. She stated that she would like her case dismissed." The report
indicated that
the respondent has no prior contact with the criminal justice system, although her
mother
reported that she has twice called the police to the family residence to address
problems with her
daughter. The first instance occurred when the respondent "went to the kitchen and
took a knife
to open something she had money in [and] [t]he mother thought the respondent took
the knife to
harm herself, but didn't." The second incident involved respondent's running away
after the
mother asked her to perform chores in the residence. Respondent's mother stated that
her
daughter "took medication" in a suicidal gesture about a year ago and that respondent
had been
enrolled in therapy a year or two ago and that therapy has stopped because
respondent "didn't
like" the therapists.
The probation officer's evaluation states that respondent committed the theft by
herself, although the delinquency petition clearly states that she acted in concert with
another
girl. The officer noted that while the respondent and her mother generally have a
good relation-
[*3]
ship and respondent gets along with her
stepfather, the respondent is sometimes rebellious when
given directions by her mother. In addition, while respondent's mother had
previously enrolled
her in therapy, the treatment stopped apparently because respondent refused to attend
further
sessions. While respondent appears capable of achieving academically, she has
problems with
arriving on time and passing certain courses. The probation officer expressed some
concern
about respondent's behavior in the community, including the possibility of
associating with some
negative peers and obeying her mother's curfew, and the probation officer's review of
respondent's school records reflected that between the date that school commenced
on
September 8, 2010 and November 22, 2010 the respondent "had 13 absences and 22
lateness.
The disciplinary record revealed no suspensions for the 2009-2010 school year. The
final
marking period grades revealed that respondent passed 8 courses but one with marks
ranging
from 45-89." Respondent's mother explained that while her daughter was sometimes
late getting
to school, she only missed school due to physical illness, and she does not cut
classes. Respond-
ent told the probation officer that in the first quarter of the 2010-2011 school year,
she thinks that
she failed Physical Education and Band, that she still has problems with getting to
school on
time, that she is doing well in her other classes and has not been in trouble at school.
In evaluating all of the evidence, the probation officer concluded that "the respondent
could benefit from a brief period of supervision and counseling." However, the
recommendation
section of the report indicates that the Department of Probation is recommending
that respondent
be granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, an outcome which does
not involve
an adjudication of juvenile delinquency nor regular supervision of the juvenile by the
probation
department (see, Fam. Ct. Act §315.3; Matter of Edwin L., 88
NY2d 593, 600).
[*4]
On November 23, 2010 this Court issued an opinion in a
series of juvenile delinquency
proceedings in which the Department of Probation had utilized a computer-based
mathematical
diagnostic device known as the "Probation Assessment Tool" (Matter of
Geraldine A., et al.,
2010 NY Slip Op 52033, 2010 WL 4812804). In that prior opinion, the Court
discussed the
design and structure of the Probation Assessment Tool ("PAT") in detail and
expressed its view
that the PAT contained an inherent bias in favor of female juvenile delinquents, and
that the PAT
was apparently designed to reduce the number of juvenile delinquents who might be
placed in
custody of the Office of Children and Family Services or placed under supervision of
the
Department of Probation. That objective is achieved by recommending adjournments
in
contemplation of dismissal or Conditional Discharges for those juveniles believed
less likely to
engage in further criminal behavior, that is female delinquents between the ages of
12 and 15,
and the recommendations are arrived at through the PAT computer program which
has an
internal system of scoring which favors such juveniles.
In the present case the Court believes that the Department of Probation utilized the PAT
computer program to arrive at the final recommendation that respondent be granted
an ACD,
although the information contained in the probation investigation certainly tends to
indicate that
she "could benefit from a brief period of supervision and counseling." Accordingly,
the Court
requested that the Department of Probation immediately provide the Court with a
copy of the
PAT report for the respondent. The Court was then advised that the Department
would not
release the PAT report for respondent "without a court order", apparently meaning
that the
Department would not comply with the Court's valid verbal order.
As requested by the Department of Probation, a separate written order directing that the
[*5]
PAT report for the respondent be produced on
December 2, 2010 has been issued. Given the
position taken by the Department of Probation, it bears noting that the Court's
directive is
firmly supported by the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department in
Matter of
Jasmine G. (35 AD3d 604 [2006]), in which the Appellate Division
found that the Family Court properly directed the Department of Probation to produce materials
relating to the PAT at a
dispositional hearing (see, Matter of Jasmine G., 35 AD3d 606, 606-607 [subsequent appeal]).
While the Department of Probation may disagree with this Court's directive that it
produce the PAT report for this respondent, as well as the orders to produce issued in
Matter of
Geraldine A., et al., the Department is not free to disregard the
order or to compel this Court to
reduce its order to a writing. "The doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court
has decided
a legal issue, subsequent appeals presenting similar facts should be decided in
conformity with
the earlier decision. Its purpose is to promote efficiency and provide guidance and
consistency in
future cases by recognizing that legal questions, once settled, should not be
reexamined every
time they are presented. The doctrine also rests upon the principle that a court is an
institution,
not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change
merely
because the personnel of the court changes" (People v. Bing, 76 NY2d 331,
338; see also, People
v. Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487-488; Battle v. State of New York,
257 AD3d 745, 746, lv denied 93
NY2d 805, 806).
The doctrine of stare decisis requires that trial courts follow the precedents of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and those of the Court of Appeals
(Mountain View
Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664). While appellate
courts have developed
standards to determine whether stare decisis should be applied or withheld
with respect to a
[*6]
rule of law (Hobson at 488; Bing
at 338), trial courts and litigants are not empowered to decide
whether or not to follow precedential decisions. With respect to the issue of whether
the
Department of Probation must produce the PAT report or PAT materials in a
dispositional
hearing, the holding in Matter of Jasmine G. is controlling as there is no
contrary ruling by
the Appellate Division in this department or by the Court of Appeals (Storms
at 664).
A copy of this order shall be provided to the parties and the Department of Probation.
E N T E R:
_______________________________
JOHN M. HUNT
Judge of the Family Court
Dated: Jamaica, New York
December 1, 2010
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.