In re Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Jesus S., 104 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Shalar N. (nyappdiv, 2018-06-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Shalar N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Here, contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation instead of granting him an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see Matter of Kieron C., 140 AD3d at 1161 ; Matter of Deandre Mc., 124 AD3d 786 ; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Aaron B. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and, inter alia, placing him on probation instead of directing adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3; Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d at 1082-1083; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Leonce K.O.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other things, the seriousness of the offense, and the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for his actions (see Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter of Uriah D., 74 AD3d at 1195 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Leonce K.O.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other things, the seriousness of the offense, and the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for his actions (see Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter of Uriah D., 74 AD3d at 1195 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Thomas N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense, the recommendation made in the probation report, the appellant’s excessive absences at school, and his poor academic performance (see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869 ; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Thomas N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense, the recommendation made in the probation report, the appellant’s excessive absences at school, and his poor academic performance (see Matter of Tyriwali B., 106 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d at 695; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869 ; Matter of Cindy A., 31 AD3d 440 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Brian M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Although, as it is often stated, a respondent is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his or her "first brush with the law" ( Matter of Melissa B. , 49 AD3d 536, 537 ; see Matter of Jesus S. , 104 AD3d 694 ), a respondent's criminal and disciplinary history is nevertheless relevant to a court's discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal ( see e.g.
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Nijuel J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Although, as it is often stated, a respondent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because the underlying incident was his or her "first brush with the law" ( Matter of Melissa B. , 49 AD3d 536, 537 ; see Matter of Jesus S. , 104 AD3d 694 ), a respondent's criminal and disciplinary history is nevertheless relevant to a court's discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal ( see e.g.
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Nigel H.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Although a juvenile is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of *1035 dismissal merely because this was his or her “first brush with the law” (Matter of Melissa B., 49 AD3d 536, 537 [2008]; see Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d 694 , 695 [2013]), a juvenile’s particular circumstances — including his or her criminal and disciplinary history, history of drug or alcohol use, association with gang activity, academic and school attendance history, and ability to accept responsibility for his or her acts — are nevertheless relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether…
discussed Cited "see" In re Jonathan M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Al though, as it is often stated, a respondent is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his or her “first brush with the law” (Matter of Melissa B., 49 AD3d 536, 537 [2008]; see Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d 694 [2013]), a respondent’s criminal and disciplinary history is nevertheless relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal (see e.g.
discussed Cited "see" In re Jonathan M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Al though, as it is often stated, a respondent is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his or her “first brush with the law” (Matter of Melissa B., 49 AD3d 536, 537 [2008]; see Matter of Jesus S., 104 AD3d 694 [2013]), a respondent’s criminal and disciplinary history is nevertheless relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal (see e.g.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jesus S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 6, 2013.
104 A.D.3d 694
Published

[*695] In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Jesus S. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated April 30, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 22, 2012, made upon his admission, finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation under the supervision of the Probation Department of the County of Kings for a period of 12 months.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the proper disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 141; Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2011]; Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d 643, 644 [2011]; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d 868, 869 [2010]), and its determination is accorded great deference (see Matter of Donovan E., 92 AD3d 881, 882 [2012]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for a period of 12 months instead of directing an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3; Matter of Natasha G, 91 AD3d 948, 949 [2012]). The appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first encounter with the law, or in light of the other mitigating circumstances that he cites (see Matter of Ashanti D., 100 AD3d 886 [2012]; Matter of Natasha G., 91 AD3d at 949; Matter of Tafari M., 90 AD3d at 1053). The record establishes that the imposition of probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the appellant’s best interests and the need for protection of the community (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]), particularly in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense and the recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Cooper C., 81 AD3d at 644; Matter of Gustav D., 79 AD3d at 869). Eng, PJ., Rivera, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.