The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing a period of supervised probation rather than granting appellant's request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Probation was the least restrictive alternative consistent with appellant's needs and those of the community, given the violent nature of the offense, which involved an unprovoked attack on another boy who had allegedly given appellant a dirty look months before ( see e.g. Matter of Elias A., 61 AD3d 425). The evidence supported the conclusion that appellant would benefit from referral to counseling for anger management issues, and that he was in need of supervision for a longer period than six months, which would have been the maximum period available under an ACD ( see id.).