## Facts

- Ellery C., age 16, was adjudicated a “person in need of supervision” (PINS) under Article 7 of the New York Family Court Act on his mother’s petition.
- Approximately one year later, based on a probation department recommendation, the Family Court (Kings County) ordered Ellery placed at the New York State Training School at Otisville, an institution used to confine juvenile delinquents.
- The State asserted the training school was the only available placement that could address Ellery’s needs, but the record did not substantiate that claim.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the placement order.
- Ellery appealed as of right to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 7 permits a child adjudicated PINS to be placed in a state training school that confines juvenile delinquents.
2. Whether a court may order such placement without a record showing that no less restrictive, PINS-appropriate alternative is available and that the placement serves the statutory purposes of PINS dispositions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The court vacated the order committing Ellery to the Otisville training school.
- The case was remanded for a disposition consistent with the PINS provisions and purposes of the Family Court Act.
- The court concluded the record did not justify committing a PINS youth to a delinquent training school.

## Legal Principles

- PINS proceedings are intended to provide care, protection, and assistance rather than impose delinquency-style confinement.
- A PINS child generally may not be placed in an institution in which juvenile delinquents are confined.
- Any highly restrictive placement for a PINS youth requires a particularized record showing (a) the absence of suitable, less restrictive PINS-oriented alternatives and (b) consistency with the statutory rehabilitative objectives.
- Administrative convenience or generalized claims of “availability” do not, without record support, authorize placement of a PINS youth in a delinquent training school.

## Conclusion

The court held that committing a PINS youth to a state training school for juvenile delinquents was inconsistent with the legislative separation between PINS and delinquency dispositions and was invalid on this record, requiring a new, statute-consistent disposition on remand.


In re Ellery C., 32 N.Y.2d 588, 300 N.E.2d 424 (N.Y. 1973)