In re Dennis ZZ.

Casey, J. P.

Respondent admitted certain of the allegations of the petition and, after a dispositional hearing, was placed in the custody of the Division for Youth (hereinafter DFY) for one year. On this appeal, respondent contends that the evidence does not support Family Court’s finding that placement with DFY is the least restrictive available alternative that is consistent with the needs and best interests of respondent and the need for protection of the community (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]). According to respondent, the proper disposition would have been placement in the custody of…