IN RE: Larry C. A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent (2026)

Factual & Procedural Background

The Respondent, Larry C., now age 16.5, is before the Court on a dispositional hearing after an admission to Robbery in the Second Degree relating to a September 27, 2024 incident which constituted a Designated Felony in light of Larry's two prior felony findings from an Attempted Robbery on March 8, 2024 (D-5XXX-24) and a Robbery in the Second Degree from October 2, 2023 (D-2XXX-23). Larry has unfortunately had quite a number of other cases in the juvenile justice system over the past 3 years and has been provided more than one opportunity to remain home on probationary sentences coupled with various community programs, the first one beginning on February 2, 2024 for an incident that occurred when Larry was 13. While on his latest period of probation, which began on May 14, 2024, for 18 months, Larry was arrested for an incident that occurred on July 4, 2024 and charged under D-1XXXX-24; following his admission to Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, his probation disposition was revoked and he was placed with the Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") in a Non-Secure Close to Home ("CTH") setting in Brooklyn on December 2, 2024. Prior to Larry's placement, he had also been charged with two different robberies from September of 2024, one that was filed in the Supreme Court Youth Part and one in Family Court as a Designated Felony, the instant docket, E-2XXXX-24, as well as another delinquency case. This Court delayed resolution of E-2XXXX-24 to assess Larry's progress in placement given that the Presentment Agency stated its intention to request a restrictive placement from the time this matter was filed. The Youth Part case was then removed to Family Court on August 27, 2025, as a Designated Felony petition on E-1XXXX-25, since Larry had done extremely well in CTH by that point such that his release to after-care was being planned. Larry then made an admission on October 3, 2025, to the instant Designated Felony docket, with the agreement by the Presentment Agency to withdraw E-1XXXX-25, the new removal, and the other older pending delinquency petition, D-X3XXX-24.

Larry had remained in CTH for approximately 10 months and returned home in October of 2025, shortly after making this admission. Despite this Court's best efforts to monitor and encourage a structured and supported return for Larry, no community-based therapy program was in place upon Larry's release nor was he enrolled immediately in a gym or other creative or physical activity. Therapy, working out and writing had been sources of mental, physical and emotional support for Larry in CTH and it was critical that these be arranged in the community prior to his release. In fact, this Court had to issue an order for DYFJ to arrange these at an early December court date, 6 weeks after Larry was already back home. As a result, Larry had too much unstructured time on his hands and he ended up returning to his past poor decision-making. Thus, less than four months after his release, Larry was arrested for three armed robberies that all allegedly occurred on the same date early in 2026. These cases have been indicted and are still pending in the Supreme Court Youth Part; as a result of these arrests, Larry has been remanded to secure detention since this latest arrest.

The Dispositional Hearing in this case had begun on February 2, 2026, just prior to the Respondent's arrests later that month and therefore the hearing was adjourned for a significant period to allow those cases to proceed and assess the impact on this disposition. As a result, the hearing did not conclude until July 31st. The Court placed into evidence the various dispositional reports as well as adjustment reports provided by the Rising Ground related to Larry's performance on aftercare from CTH. The Presentment Agency requested testimony from the Mental Health Clinic examiner, Dr. Symeou, and the Respondent's After-care caseworker from Rising Ground. The AFC introduced five certificates the Respondent earned in school in secure detention as well as a letter from the Brooklyn Combine, an arts program that Larry also participated in as a writer, photographer and videographer. The Court requested DYFJ to provide a witness who had worked with Larry while he was in the NSP facility and, as a result, Larry's Rising Ground Placement and Permanency Specialist, Ms. Anagbogu, testified.

In terms of the dispositional reports, the Probation Investigation and Report ("I&R") recommends Placement, with no level specified. Probation also completed a Placement Recommendation Tool ("PRT") which provides a recommendation as to placement level based on only 3 limited factors. Larry received a point for 2 out of the 3 factors, both related to the severity of his offenses, which was sufficient for the minimum score for a limited secure recommendation. The Youth Level of Service ("YLS") risk and needs assessment instrument completed by Probation scored Larry's overall risk level as high. The initial Mental Health Study ("MHS") recommended an Alternative to Placement program with probation. In the updated report submitted on April 14, 2026, after Larry's new arrests, the examiner declined to change the recommendation.

The Attorney for the Child ("AFC") has essentially conceded that Larry will be returning to a placement facility of some type. The Presentment Agency is requesting that the Court find that a 3-year restrictive placement is necessary given Larry's lengthy delinquent history, while the AFC contends that Larry should again be placed in a Close to Home facility, ideally non-secure again or at most, a limited secure placement facility.

Since the time of the February arrest, Larry has spent 6 months in secure detention and this Court has seen him at regular court dates. The Youth Part has reserved decision on an "extraordinary circumstances" motion for Larry's cases to remain there as the circumstances of the crime and Larry's alleged role do not automatically prevent removal under the Raise the Age law criteria. Regardless of whether those three indictments are removed, Larry's legal journey will continue as he will still face trial and, if found responsible, a legal consequence for the charges from early this year in either system.

Legal Analysis

"Delinquency proceedings are designed not just to punish the malefactor but also to extinguish the causes of juvenile delinquency through rehabilitation and treatment. Indeed, a hallmark of the juvenile justice system is that a delinquency adjudication cannot constitute a criminal conviction and a juvenile delinquent cannot be denominated a criminal. Rather, a Family Court adjudication is a civil proceeding, and its purpose is to supervise and guide a troubled youth." Green v Montgomery, 95 NY2d 693, 697—98 [2001] (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Matter of Quinton A., 49 NY2d 328, 335 [1980] ("[I]n most cases the Legislature has chosen not to brand the juvenile who commits an act which would otherwise be a crime a criminal, but recognizes that he is a person not fully responsible for his conduct.")

The dispositional scheme of Article 3 encapsulates this essential difference between juvenile delinquency and adult criminal prosecutions in the language of Family Court Act § 352.1. That part of the statute sets forth that a juvenile delinquency adjudication is a two-fold process where the entry of a fact-finding, whether after trial or admission, is only the first step. In order for the adjudication to occur, the court must make an additional finding at the dispositional stage, namely that the respondent "requires supervision, treatment or confinement." Family Court Act§ 352.1(1).

If that threshold finding is made, in the case of a designated felony, the Court must first consider whether a restrictive placement is needed. FCA § 353.5(2). The statute requires the Court to consider the following factors in making this decision: "the needs and best interests of the respondent; the record and background of the respondent, including but not limited to information disclosed in the probation investigation and diagnostic assessment; the nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether any injury was inflicted by the respondent or another participant; the need for protection of the community; and the age and physical condition of the victim." FCA § 353.5(2)(a-e). The Court has "considerable discretion to determine whether a restrictive placement is necessary." Matter of Lavon S., 153 AD3d 526, (2d Dept. 2017), citing, Matter of Manuel R., 89 NY2d 1043 (1997). Restrictive placements require that a young person begin their placement in a secure facility run by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") and be stepped down over that placement period, which would be 3 years in Larry's case, to an OCFS limited and/or non-secure facility before being returned to the community. See FCA § 353.5(2). These facilities are spread throughout New York State and some are many hours from NYC making in person visits by families extremely rare.

If a restrictive placement is found to not be necessary, the Court is to revert to the usual standard for delinquency dispositions pursuant to Family Court Act § 352.2(a). "In determining an appropriate [specific dispositional] order, the court shall consider the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need for protection of the community . [T]he court shall order the least restrictive available alternative which is consistent with" those two factors. Id. This includes, at the most restrictive end of the spectrum, the option of placement in either a non-secure ("NSP") or limited secure ("LSP") facility which are part of the Close to Home ("CTH") program currently run by the Division of Youth and Family Justice ("DYFJ") of the NYC Administration for Children's Services ("ACS). Historically, OCFS ran all of the available placement facilities; in 2012, the entire juvenile delinquency placement philosophy and scheme was transformed with the development of the CTH model which was envisioned to enable youth to remain in or near NYC while in placement to facilitate regular family contact and engagement in treatment and improve likelihood of success in their transitions to the community.

Designated felonies where restrictive placement are sought by the Presentment Agency are somewhat unusual in Family Court. For this reason, there are very few appellate cases to guide this Court in its decision and even less that have been decided since 2012 when the CTH placement scheme was adopted by New York City. See Lavon S., 153 AD3d at 526 (holding that the Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering a 3 year restrictive placement); Matter of Joseph B., 110 AD3d 501 (1st Dept 2013) (3 year restrictive placement warranted even though psychiatrist and probation officer recommended against a restrictive placement given the juvenile's history); Matter of Malik H., 107 AD3d 447, (1st Dept 2013) (3 year restrictive placement appropriate for 15 year old even though psychologist and psychiatrist recommended against a restrictive placement but did recommend placement in a "highly structured environment outside the community"). See also Matter of Dwayne J.R., 60 AD3d 1467 (4th Dept 2009) (5 year restrictive placement appropriate for 14 year old who participated in murder of 18 year old and needed "intensive psychotherapy" among other services). This Court has ordered one such placement for a youth who admitted to participating of a felony murder. Matter of D.S., 80 Misc 3d 721 (Family Ct. Kings 2023).

The Respondent has acknowledged that this Court will find that he is need of placement away from home in a juvenile facility. The questions that remain here are whether the Presentment Agency has established that the factors in FCA § 353.5(2) require a restrictive placement and, if not, whether the need for protection of the community and Larry's best interests require the Court to mandate that the facility be a limited secure CTH placement as opposed to a non-secure one.

Given Larry's long and complicated history, it is important to note that this dispositional hearing concerns a robbery that occurred on September 27, 2024, approximately two months BEFORE Larry began his placement at CTH. Given this fact as well as the generally excellent reports Larry received during his time in the CTH facility, this Court was considering giving Larry another opportunity to be on a high-level of probation upon his release from CTH. In fact, that was the recommendation of the psychologist from the Court Mental Health Clinic, Dr. Symeou, in her report submitted on December 1, 2025, after Larry's release.¹ Larry's arrests and indictments for multiple robberies on February 9th disrupted this plan. Significantly, Dr. Symeou was unwilling to conclusively change her recommendation to one of placement without information about the outcome of these newest cases and details about Larry's role in and the circumstances of the incidents, especially since all 3 incidents were in concert and occurred on one day. See Updated Forensic Mental Health Evaluation on E-2XXXX-24 dated April 14, 2026 at p.3. Dr, Symeou expressed concern that when she last interviewed Larry following his release from CTH, he noted "was not enrolled in any intensive therapeutic services." In light of that, she concluded it [was] not unreasonable to expect that Larry may," and in fact did, "revert to problematic behavior" involving negative peers, gangs and delinquent behavior. Id. at p. 2.

There was no evidence presented by either side at this hearing about any of the differences between the OCFS restrictive placement facilities and the CTH ones. In particular, the Court is not aware of any statistics showing the relative ability of the different levels facilities to reduce the recidivism of their residents. According to Family Court Act 301.2(10), a "secure facility" is defined as a residential facility that is "characterized by physically restricting construction, hardware, and procedures and is designated as a secure facility by the division for youth." According to the CTH plan published by ACS, the CTH level of facilities are distinguished by the limited secure facilities' amount of restrictive hardware both surrounding the facility and internally as well as a higher staff to youth ratio.²

The DYFJ Placement and Permanency specialist testified that the differences between NSP and LSP were limited to a lower staff-resident ratio in LSP and that residents in non-secure facilities leave the facility for school and have the ability to earn home passes after an initial month in placement, whereas residents in limited secure generally remain on-site for school and do not begin home visits until release planning has begun.³

In assessing the factors required by the Family Court Act to determine the need for a restrictive placement, the Court will first look at Larry's history of delinquent acts. See FCA § 353.5(2)(c-e) ("the nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether any injury was inflicted by the respondent or another participant; the need for protection of the community; and the age and physical condition of the victim."). There is clearly a significant need to protect the community from Larry given his continued delinquent acts even after receiving various community interventions. However, despite the considerable number of prior findings and unsealed arrests that Larry has incurred over the past 3 years, all of his acts have been in concert with other youth and all have been property theft related. The circumstances involved actual or threats of force only to the extent needed to get the victims, who are primarily adults and recently store employees, to turn over the property quickly and ideally without any injury. Although a gun is alleged to have been displayed in some of the thefts, this element has never been proven, and Larry has not been alleged to be the one who carried the weapon.

There is only one case in Larry's past that this Court can recall, where the victim was actually physically harmed and that was where the victim resisted the snatching of her purse and was consequently injured. Clearly, this risk of injury was always present in Larry's thefts, but this Court believes, based on knowing Larry, that he never intended to hurt anyone. Larry's motivation for these acts was always money, something he has acknowledged both to probation and the MHS doctor; although his mother is very dedicated to her family and works hard to provide for all of Larry's needs, as a single mother of 3 she is limited in what she can buy. Like most teenagers, Larry cares about his appearance and clothes, wearing the latest styles and carrying the most current gadget. Larry has admitted that he is impatient about waiting for items that he wants until either he and/or his mother can save up for them. This urgency is also typical for teens, although of course it does not justify delinquent activity. Larry clearly needs to learn to manage his desires and the impulse to steal to get things faster and his last period in placement did not accomplish this. Larry has never participated in a restorative justice process where he could hear directly from a victim about the impact of his actions on them, and the Court believes this would likely be impactful for Larry and assist him in thinking about the impact of his decisions going forward.

The other factors the Family Court Act requires the Court to consider are "the needs and best interests of the respondent" and "the record and background of the respondent." FCA § 353.5(2)(a-b) As previously stated, this Court has had the opportunity to get to know Larry, as well as his mother, for longer than most of the respondents before me. I have read numerous reports about him over the past 3 years from programs, probation officers and facilities, along with a number of letters that Larry has written to me about his owns thoughts and goals during periods of detention. I have seen and engaged with Larry and his mother in at least two dozen court appearances and in almost all I have talked with Larry about his considerable strengths and opportunity to have a successful future as an adult and in a variety of careers that he has expressed interest in. Larry's mother, Ms. M., has been a consistent presence and staunch supporter for Larry throughout his cases and I have always been impressed by the closeness of their relationship as well as by Larry's desire and attempts to be a "good" big brother to his younger siblings. I never had any concerns about Larry when he was at home or outside in his mother's care — it was only when Larry left the house and engaged with his peers that his delinquent involvement occurred. I still firmly believe in Larry's potential to succeed despite his high number of prior findings and the fact that prior interventions have not helped Larry, and the Court, achieve this goal. Most recently, the Court received a letter from the Director of Programming at the Brooklyn Combine who taught an "Intentional Storyteller's Academy" at Larry's current detention facility. The letter refers to Larry as an "exceptional" participant who "distinguished himself through his eagerness to participate, his natural leadership ability and his commitment to lifting those around him." AFC's Exhibit A in evidence dated April 7, 2026. The letter goes on to speak in detail about Larry's impressive collaborative skills while knowing when to step in to lead as needed, as well as his considerable creative talents in photography, videography and storytelling.

Larry successfully completed his last period of non-secure placement after spending 10 months in placement out of a possible initial period of 18 months. The MHS examiner who interviewed Larry was initially recommending an "Alternative to Placement ("ATP") program which involves the highest level of probation supervision combined with, in Larry's case, a home-based therapy program. This recommendation was made before Larry incurred the new arrest while on after-care for the three robberies that occurred on February 9, 2026; however, as noted about, even after Larry's arrests, Dr. Symeou was not willing to definitively change her recommendation.

Larry appears to have adapted to the requirements of his previous non-secure placement and engaged in the services provided. He tells the MHS examiner that, while in placement, he "received weekly therapy which was helpful in that he learned to play chess, and learned that "you can't control everything," and "can't be upset about everything and let your emotions get the best of you." Court's Exhibit III, Updated Clinical Report, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Family Court Mental Health Services, dated November 7, 2025. Larry had multiple successful home passes while in CTH that eventually led to his return home and he had no arrests or incidents while in the facility. Larry never left or even attempted to leave the facility unauthorized. The Placement and Permanency Specialist assigned to Larry, Ms. Anagbogu, testified that Larry was interested in writing and acting while at the CTH facility though there was no structure put in place for Larry to continue in these upon release. She also testified that Larry was interested in a job upon release but, because he was failing classes in school, the decision was made to wait for the summer to provide him with any employment opportunities. In Ms. Anagbogu's opinion, based on her work with Larry both in the facility and in after-care, was that Larry's re-arrests occurred because he had too much idle time and associated with negative peers.

Since this new arrest, Larry has again been able to adapt to a facility, this time in a secure detention environment, where he has remained for several months again with no attempts to leave the facility unauthorized. Larry has achieved the Silver level for his behavior and is generally described as respectful to staff and appropriate with peers and has generally been free of incidents. According to his most recent adjustment report, "[t]he main concern that workers continue to report was the youth's level of playfulness, meaning horse-playing with the other youths and being somewhat of a follower/mimicking others' behavior which doesn't positively benefit him. Due to his actions, the youth require multiple redirections, which he would eventually comply with. Based on his case manager's observation, the youth appeared to have a good relationship with majority of his workers and is receptive to conversations that focus on the betterment of his livelihood and well-being." Court's Exhibit XI, DYFJ Youth Detention Adjustment Report, dated July 28, 2026, p.2. This quote highlights that Larry is still growing up and maturing and that his on-going struggle is resisting the impact of the negative influence of his peers.

It would be a simplistic response to say that because Larry was placed in a non-secure facility and was re-arrested for a felony within a few months of his release that the next step must be placement for a longer period and in a higher level of restriction and security. The criminal justice system tends to operate on a graduated sanction approach such as that. However, the criminal justice system's primary goal is punishment and therefore sentencing ranges there are based on the severity of the crime and the defendant's prior record. In contrast, the juvenile justice system was not designed to respond in this simplistic manner. Rather the Family Court is mandated by statute to engage in the much more complex process of looking at the background, circumstances and needs of the specific young person in question and to determine which dispositional alternative best addresses those needs, as well as the goal of community safety, in the least restrictive manner possible.

In this Court's view, for all the reasons stated above, the final analysis of these factors does not lead to a conclusion that either Larry's rehabilitation or the goal of community protection will be better served by a restrictive placement, and therefore such a placement is not necessary. The Court must then turn to the question of what level of CTH placement facility is required here. It is true that there was no risk to the community presented by Larry's behavior while residing in the non-secure placement facility but only in his transition back to the community. At that point, system failures clearly contributed to Larry's failure to lead a law-abiding life upon his release. This Court believes that the fact that a DYFJ-CTH facility did not result in such behavior change the first time around does not mean that it will not happen the second time; nor does it mean that a longer mandated placement period is necessary. Adolescents often require lessons to be repeated multiple times before they are successfully absorbed given the continuing development of the adolescent brain through the teenage years.⁴ Larry will be 17 in a few months and therefore his brain is considerably more mature than it was during his last placement when he was 14.

However, this Court does believe that a step up to a limited secure facility is warranted here. Although the services may not be substantively different at a limited secure, this Court believes Larry needs a new placement facility with a slightly different model to appreciate the impact on the community of his on-going delinquent activity. The Court does not believe Larry should be eligible for home passes as early as he would be in NSP and his attendance at an out-of-facility school should be delayed. Additionally, the staff to resident ratio is smaller at limited secure which will hopefully mean Larry's receives a higher level of mentoring and guidance in the facility. The Court will also make orders with the goal of insuring Larry receives family therapy while in CTH as well as that individual and family therapy be in place in the community BEFORE Larry is released. Since Larry has been in a secure detention facility, if the Youth Part orders change to allow him to go to non-secure, that will be a step down from where he has been and acknowledgement of his generally positive behavior in the facility. Therefore, this Court finds that a limited secure DYFJ-CTH facility strikes the right balance in acknowledging Larry's strengths and potential to succeed while also addressing the significant community safety concerns.

Based on the evidence at this hearing, community safety will be equally or better served by placing Larry again in a CTH facility. The CTH interventions can and should be directed at giving Larry insight into his errors in decision-making while at home, helping him resist negative temptations, and working to re-direct him towards making choices in the future that will not put either the community or himself at risk of harm.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Respondent, Larry C., is in need of supervision, treatment and confinement, and hereby adjudicates him to be a juvenile delinquent. Family Ct. Act §§ 350.3[2], 352.1[2]. The least restrictive alternative required by Family Court Act 352 is placement with ACS CTH for a limited-secure facility for a period of up to 18 months with a 6-month minimum.

The Respondent is to comply with a Final Order of Protection for Samuel J. and Bondi Liquors and an order to stay away from Valeriia K.

DYFJ is ORDERED to:

1) Facilitate regular visits to the facility by the Respondent's mother, Ms. M., including providing transportation funds as needed, and engage Ms. M. in family therapy while Larry is in the facility BEFORE it is time to work towards his release;

2) provide Restorative Justice services to Larry in the facility, through DYFJ if available or an outside agency such as the Peace Institute to assist him in his appreciation of the harm of his actions and provide an opportunity for him to take steps to acknowledge and repair that harm either in person, if the Complainant Mr. J. is willing, or through writing or a video.

3) Aftercare services MST be set up IN ADVANCE of Larry's return to the community and Larry is to be escorted initially to these services upon his release, specifically:

individual and family therapy outside of the home;

a gym membership or other physical activity opportunity the R wishes to engage in;

placement in a creative arts program involving writing, theater, and/or videography or photography.

Date: August 19, 2026

ENTER: ___________________________

The Hon. Jacqueline B. Deane, JFC

FOOTNOTES

1.   Notably, Dr. Symeou also interviewed Larry, and his mother, for the Mental Health Study ("MHS") on D-5XXX-24, dated April 15, 2024 where she recommended probation. Therefore, she has had an unusually substantive and longitudinal opportunity to get to know Larry, and the course and impact of his progression through the juvenile justice system.

2.   "The ratio of youth to direct care/supervisory workers in all types of regular NSP residential settings shall be eight (8) youth to one direct care/supervisory staff during all waking hours and twelve (12) youth to one direct care/supervisory staff during sleeping hours." Juvenile Justice Non-Secure Placements Quality Assurance Standards, NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2013, p.65. "The ratio of youth to direct care workers in all types of general and specialized LSP residential settings shall be six (6) youth to two (2) direct care staff." Juvenile Justice Limited Secure Placements Quality Assurance Standards, NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2015, p.24.

3.   "ACS-placed youth in NSP facilities shall be assessed for an initial home visit no later than 30 days from admission to the facility, unless otherwise indicated in the youth's placement order." Juvenile Justice Non-Secure Placements Quality Assurance Standards, NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2013. In contrast, "[a]s part of the release process, and to begin the transition from the LSP facility back to the community, LSP contractor staff supervised day visits by the youth to the home of the parent[s], family, extended family or other discharge resources must begin at the discretion of ACS with information and consultation from the LSP contractor." Juvenile Justice Limited Secure Placements Quality Assurance Standards, NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2015, p.44.

4.   "It has been noted that 'adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.' " Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551, 569, 125 S Ct 1183, 1195, 161 L Ed 2d 1 [2005] (quoting Arnett, "Reckless Behavior in Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective," 12 Developmental Rev. 339 (1992)); see also Brief of the Amer. Med. Ass., Amer. Psychiatric Assoc., et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Roper v Simmons, 2004 WL 1633549 (U.S.), 2-3 (U.S.,2004) ("Cutting-edge brain imaging technology reveals that regions of the adolescent brain do not reach a fully mature state until after the age of 18. These regions are precisely those associated with impulse control, regulation of emotions, risk 3 assessment, and moral reasoning. Critical developmental changes in these regions occur only after late adolescence.").

Jacqueline B. Deane, J.