Majority
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [3]). “Respondent failed to preserve for our review his contention that [Family Court] improperly acted as an advocate for [petitioner] by questioning a witness” (Matter of Aron B., 46 AD3d 1431 , 1431 [2007]; see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 , 887-888 [1982]; Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 AD3d 1168 , 1169 [2005]), as well as his contention that the court erred in failing to order a probation investigation as required under Family Court Act § 351.1 (2) (see generally Matter of Michael A.M., 31 AD3d 1183 [2006]; Matter of Phillip D., 27 AD3d 1126 [2006]). We decline to review those contentions in the interest of justice (see generally Yadiel Roque C., 17 AD3d at
Cases cited
- In re Aron B. 46 AD3d 1431 at 1431 p. 1456
- In re Yadiel Roque C. 17 AD3d 1168 at 1169 p. 1456
- In re Phillip D. 27 AD3d 1126 p. 1456
- In re Jeffrey V. 82 NY2d 121 at 126 p. 1457
- In re Brian S.M. 309 AD2d 1224 p. 1457