IN RE: MICHAEL OO. (2008)

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Assini, J.), entered September 7, 2007, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent, and (2) from an order of said court, entered November 16, 2007, which granted petitioner's application to modify the prior order of disposition.

The facts are set forth in our decision in an earlier appeal, where we held that Family Court erred in holding that it lacked authority to consider whether respondent should be found to be a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) rather than a juvenile delinquent, and we remitted the matter to Family Court to consider such issue (37 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 830 N.Y.S.2d 390 [2007] ).   Upon remittal, Family Court found, in an order entered in September 2007, that a juvenile delinquency determination was appropriate and placed respondent on probation.   Petitioner subsequently moved to extend respondent's probation for six months and, upon respondent's consent, the application was granted in an order entered in November 2007.   Respondent appeals from both orders.

Initially, we note that the appeal from the November 2007 order must be dismissed since it was entered on consent (see Matter of Desmond S., 97 N.Y.2d 693, 693, 739 N.Y.S.2d 91, 765 N.E.2d 294 [2002];  Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29 A.D.3d 996, 997, 817 N.Y.S.2d 304 [2006];  Matter of Misti Z., 300 A.D.2d 1147, 1147, 750 N.Y.S.2d 918 [2002] ).   Moreover, respondent abandoned any challenge to such order by failing to advance an argument regarding it on appeal (see Matter of Senator NN., 305 A.D.2d 819, 820, 759 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2003] ).

Petitioner contends that the appeal from the September 2007 order finding juvenile delinquency is moot.   We cannot agree.   Although respondent has completed his dispositional requirement, that adjudication nevertheless implicates possible collateral legal consequences and, thus, is not moot (see Matter of Michael H., 239 A.D.2d 618, 619, 657 N.Y.S.2d 117 [1997];  Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 A.D.2d 651, 653, 627 N.Y.S.2d 807 [1995], affd. 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 666 N.E.2d 171 [1996] ).

Respondent argues that Family Court erred in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent rather than substituting a PINS finding.   The decision whether to substitute a PINS finding for a juvenile delinquency determination rests within the discretion of Family Court (see Family Ct. Act § 311.4[2];  37 A.D.3d at 1003, 830 N.Y.S.2d 390;  Matter of Nicholas X., 262 A.D.2d 683, 684, 690 N.Y.S.2d 777 [1999];  cf. Matter of Devon R., 278 A.D.2d 15, 15, 717 N.Y.S.2d 145 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 707, 725 N.Y.S.2d 637, 749 N.E.2d 206 [2001] ).   Here, respondent admitted initiating sexual contact with a younger child and this behavior would have constituted a crime if done by an adult.   Respondent had engaged in prior inappropriate touching of other children and respondent's own expert recommended supervision.   Upon review of the record, we are unpersuaded that Family Court abused its discretion or otherwise committed reversible error in this case (see Matter of Nicholas X., 262 A.D.2d at 684, 690 N.Y.S.2d 777).

ORDERED that the order entered September 7, 2007 is affirmed, without costs.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered November 16, 2007 is dismissed, without costs.

LAHTINEN, J.

SPAIN, J.P., KANE, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ., concur.