In re Terrance B.
Matter of Terrance B.
2007
NY Slip Op 04632 [40 AD3d 1083]
May
29, 2007
Appellate
Division, Second Department
Published
by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As
corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007
In
the Matter of Terrance B., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent,
Appellant.
—[*1] George E. Reed, Jr.,
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,
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 (Spodek, J.), dated June 16, 2006, which, upon a
fact-finding order of the same court dated January 6, 2006, made after a
hearing, finding, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an act which, if
committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of resisting arrest,
adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the Office of
Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without
costs or disbursements.
The
appellant contends that the testimony of the arresting officer at the
fact-finding hearing was less credible than his own testimony, and thus, the
evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was legally insufficient to
establish the elements of resisting arrest. Specifically, the appellant argues
that the presentment agency failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest him for theft of services,
and thus, there was legally insufficient evidence to establish the authorized
arrest element of resisting arrest. The appellant, however, failed to preserve
these arguments for appellate review because he did not raise them at the
hearing (see Matter of Hector R., 248 AD2d 390 [1998]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People
v
Contrary
to the appellant's contentions, the petition was not jurisdictionally defective
as it fully satisfied the sufficiency and verification requirements of the
Family Court Act (see Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [h]; [4]; § 311.2 [2], [3];
Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632, 636 [1992]; cf.
CPLR 3020).
The
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant with
the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The
Family Court has broad discretion in entering dispositional orders (see Family
Ct Act § 141). The court is required to choose the least restrictive available
alternative which is consistent with the best needs of the juvenile (see Matter
of Benjamin J., 10 AD3d 608, 609 [2004]; Matter of Naiquan
T., 265 AD2d 331, 332 [1999]; Matter of Jamil W., 184
AD2d 513, 514 [1992]). The court carefully considered the less-restrictive
alternatives to placing the appellant in a residential facility, and properly
balanced the needs of the juvenile and the need for the protection of the
community (see Matter of Shea McF., 33 AD3d 801, 802
[2006]; Matter of Carliph T., 26 AD3d 440, 441
[2006]; Matter of Jamal J., 8 AD3d 382, 383 [2004]; Matter of Jason W., 207
AD2d 495, 496 [1994]; Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.