IN RE: MICHAEL S. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Michael S. appeals from (1) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated December 12, 2024, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court also dated December 12, 2024.  The order of disposition under Docket No. D–12358–24, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated September 11, 2024, made upon the admission of Michael S., finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the third degree, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudicated Michael S. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months.  The order of disposition under Docket No. D–17283–24, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated September 11, 2024, made upon the admission of Michael S., finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudicated Michael S. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months.

ORDERED that the appeals from so much of the orders of disposition as placed Michael S. on probation for a period of 18 months are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant admitted to committing acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.  After a dispositional hearing, the Family Court adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months.

The appeals from so much of the orders of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 18 months must be dismissed as academic, as the period of probation has expired (see Matter of Gabriel G., 248 AD3d 1112, 1112;  Matter of Tyzay P.-B., 229 AD3d 632, 632–633).  However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, those portions of the appeals which bring up for review the appellant's contentions regarding his admissions and allocutions are not academic (see Matter of Gabriel G., 248 AD3d at 1112–1113).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court did not err in allowing his admissions and allocutions to proceed in the absence of a parent.  While the appellant did not raise this contention before the Family Court, as the statute's requirements are mandatory and nonwaivable, this Court may still reach the issue (see Family Ct Act § 321.3[1];  Matter of Cheryl P., 175 AD3d 1298, 1301;  Matter of Tyler D., 64 AD3d 1243, 1244).

Where a “reasonable and substantial effort” has been made to contact a parent or person legally responsible and such parent or person nevertheless does not appear, the court may still proceed with the appearance (Family Ct Act §§ 320.3, 341.2[3];  see Matter of Jason SS., 301 A.D.2d 900, 901;  cf.  Matter of Cheryl P., 175 AD3d at 1301).  Here, the appellant's father was notified of the hearing and did not attend because he was at work, and the appellant's father did not request an adjournment.  The appellant, his counsel, his advocate intervention mentor, and his social worker were all present.  The appellant's adult sister appeared telephonically.  None objected to proceeding or requested an adjournment even after the Family Court expressly asked the appellant whether he wished to wait for a day when his father could attend.  Under the circumstances, it was proper to proceed with the appearance (see Matter of Jason SS., 301 A.D.2d at 901;  cf.  Matter of Cheryl P., 175 AD3d at 1301).

Further, the appellant's contention that his allocutions were defective is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his admissions on that ground (see Family Ct Act § 321.4;  Matter of Oscar R.M., 213 AD3d 855, 856;  Matter of David H., 88 AD3d 710, 711).  In any event, the allocutions were proper since the appellant voluntarily waived his right to a fact-finding hearing and was made aware of all of the possible specific dispositional orders prior to his admissions that he committed the acts (see Matter of David H., 88 AD3d at 711;  Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 533).

The appellant's contention that his allocutions were defective because they did not contain a factual basis to support his admissions also is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of David H., 88 AD3d at 711;  Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d at 533).  In any event, the allocutions contained a sufficient factual basis to support the appellant's admissions to the allegations that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree (see Penal Law § 160.05) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see id. § 165.40).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either not properly before the Court or without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.