## Facts

- Elizabeth J. was 16 years old when the proceedings at issue occurred.
- On September 22, 1978, a juvenile delinquency petition was filed in New York County Family Court alleging attempted petit larceny, possession of burglar’s tools, and possession of a weapon.
- While the New York County petition was pending, Elizabeth appeared in Kings County Family Court on separate juvenile delinquency matters involving burglary; another Kings County petition alleged assault in the second degree.
- In November 1978, Elizabeth made admissions in the Kings County matters and was placed on two years’ probation subject to special conditions.
- At the time the Kings County court imposed probation, it was aware of the still-pending New York County petition.
- After being placed on probation and reportedly doing well (including no further police contact since the September 1978 incident), Elizabeth moved in New York County Family Court to dismiss the September 1978 petition.
- Elizabeth argued that because Family Court’s function is treatment and supervision rather than punishment, and because she was already on probation and complying, there was no present need for an additional disposition.
- In the alternative, Elizabeth asked the court to accept an admission to one or more charges in the September 1978 petition and place her on probation to run concurrently with the Kings County probation.
- The Corporation Counsel opposed both dismissal and the request for a concurrent-probation disposition.

## Issues

1. May Family Court dismiss a pending juvenile delinquency petition, over the prosecutor’s objection, based on the claim that there is no current need for further court action because the respondent is already on probation in another county and is doing well?
2. Did the 1976 amendment to Family Court Act § 711 limit reliance on earlier cases that dismissed petitions for lack of a demonstrated need for court intervention?
3. Must Family Court accept an admission and impose a concurrent probation disposition simply because the respondent is already subject to a probation order in a separate matter?

## Decision

- The court denied Elizabeth’s motion to dismiss the September 1978 delinquency petition.
- The court also denied the alternative request to accept an admission and impose probation running concurrently with the Kings County probation.
- The petition remained pending to proceed in the ordinary course.

## Legal Principles

- After the 1976 amendment to Family Court Act § 711, Family Court is not required to dismiss a properly filed delinquency petition solely because the respondent is already on probation and appears to be complying with that supervision.
- Earlier decisions permitting dismissal for lack of a present “need for court intervention” do not control where statutory changes have altered the framework for handling filed delinquency petitions.
- The existence of a probation disposition in a different county does not, by itself, resolve or extinguish a separate, earlier-filed delinquency petition arising from a different incident.
- Over prosecutorial opposition, the court is not obligated to bypass standard procedures by accepting an admission and imposing a pre-set concurrent probation disposition.

## Conclusion

In the Matter of Elizabeth J. held that New York County Family Court could not be compelled to dismiss a pending delinquency petition, or to accept an admission with concurrent probation, merely because the respondent had later been placed on probation in Kings County and was doing well; the court denied both requests in light of the amended statutory scheme under Family Court Act § 711 and allowed the petition to continue.


In the Matter of Elizabeth J., 413 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1979)