IN RE: MARK “VV” (1999)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Nolan Jr., J.), entered January 23, 1998, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent to be a person in need of supervision.

In September 1997, petitioner filed a petition seeking to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) based upon various unexcused absences from school (hereinafter the 1997 petition).   At his initial appearance, after having been advised of his right to remain silent and on advice of his Law Guardian, respondent admitted to the allegations in the petition.   Respondent then failed to appear on his next scheduled court date when it was reported to the court that respondent had run away from home the week before, that he was still missing and that a warrant was pending.   On December 4, 1997, after respondent appeared and admitted to running away, Family Court (James, J.), sua sponte, reopened a 1996 PINS petition, which was also based on truancy, and rescinded the resulting August 1997 dispositional order which had placed respondent on probation.   Family Court then placed respondent in detention awaiting a dispositional hearing on both the 1996 and the 1997 petitions;  respondent ran away from the detention facility.   After a brief dispositional hearing on both petitions on January 13, 1998, at which only respondent testified, Family Court ordered placement of respondent with the Saratoga Department of Social Services for a period of 18 months upon concluding that, given respondent's history of running away and truancy, placement was the least restrictive alternative.   Orders of fact-finding and disposition were thereafter entered.   Respondent now appeals.

We agree with respondent's contention that Family Court failed to satisfy the statutory mandate of Family Court Act § 754(2) when, in the order of fact finding and disposition resolving the 1997 petition, the court failed to set forth the reasons for its disposition.   We reject, as unavailing, the County Attorney's contention that the court satisfied this requirement via its oral decision on the record at the end of the dispositional hearing.   Notably, respondent has not specifically challenged the court's reasons, as stated on the record, for placing him.

This court has held that the requirement of Family Court Act § 754(2), that the court shall state the reasons for its determination in the order of disposition, as in the order of fact-finding, is “ ‘ * * * mandatory, and the information sought may not simply be stated on the record, but must be included in the order, both for judicial and policy review’ ” (Matter of Robert U., 189 A.D.2d 1014, 1015, 592 N.Y.S.2d 867, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 653, 601 N.Y.S.2d 582, 619 N.E.2d 660, appeal dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 748, 602 N.Y.S.2d 806, 622 N.E.2d 307, quoting Matter of Ricky BB., 55 A.D.2d 800, 390 N.Y.S.2d 268;  see, Matter of Randy SS., 222 A.D.2d 884, 635 N.Y.S.2d 106).  The reasons underlying the court's findings must be specifically stated in the written order.   Accordingly, the matter should be remitted to Family Court for the purpose of complying with the statutory mandate (see, Matter of Robert U., supra, at 1015, 592 N.Y.S.2d 867).

Respondent's contentions with respect to Family Court's reopening of the 1996 file will not be considered as no appeal has been taken from the order which resulted from said action.

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions with respect to the matter before us, including that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and find them to be without merit.

ORDERED that the decision is withheld, and matter is remitted to the Family Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court's decision.

SPAIN, J.

CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.