In re Jeremiah RR.
Aрpeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), entered January 22, 1998, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proсeeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.
The petition alleged that respondent, then age 15, was habitually truant, ungovernable and beyond the lawful control of his рarents or other legal custodian. Annexed to the petition was an itemizаtion of 25 days between September 24, 1997 and December 2, 1997 on which respondent was absent from school without excuse, suspended for misconduct or left school without permission, and two days on which he was removed from class for bеing uncooperative. The attachment also alleged that respondent had run away from home on several unspecified occasions, and generally that he refused to follow rules at home and refused to comе home or stay home when directed to do so. Respondent neither moved in Family Court to dismiss the petition for failure to meet the requirements of Family Court Act § 732 (a) nor requested a bill of particulars to amplify its allegations. Were this claim preserved for our review, we would find that the petition was sufficiently spеcific to apprise respondent of the conduct upon which the proceeding was based, and to permit him to prepare a defense thereto (see, Matter of Guy II.,
Contrary to respondent’s assertions, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (Family Ct Act § 744 [b]) that respondent intentionally failed to attend school in violation of Education Law § 3205 (1). The attendance records and testimony of thе principal of Cherry Valley-Springfield Central School established that during the period from September 24, 1997 to December 2, 1997, respondent had numerous unexсused absences, unauthorized departures and suspensions resulting from respоndent’s insubordination and refusal to attend classes while physically in the schoоl building. That his truancy was willful was further established by respondent’s grandmother, with whom he resided during the relevant periods, who testified that when she confronted him about his refusal to go to school his only explanation was that he did not want to go.
There is no merit to respondеnt’s contention that Family Court should have substituted a neglect petition for the PINS petition based on testimony that respondent was allowed to drink alcoholic beverages in his grandmother’s household. This testimony consisted of the probation officer who prepared the dispositional report recоunting that “[respondent] tells me that on special occasions, holidays аnd things he’s allowed to have a drink and his mother believes that he’s given wine coolers to drink at this household”. Even assuming the accuracy of this report, there wаs no evidence to suggest that respondent’s conduct forming the basis for the PINS petition, principally his refusal to attend school, was related to alсohol consumption or any other parental neglect.
Her cure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.