Ordered that the order of disposition dated June 18, 2007 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly chose not to direct an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see Family Ct Act § 315.3), but rather, to adjudge the appellant to be a juvenile delinquent ( see Family Ct Act § 352.1). The appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his "`first brush with the law,'" or because his act constituted a property crime, or in light of the other mitigating circumstances he cites ( Matter of Julissa R., 30 AD3d 526, 527-528, quoting Matter of Nikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501; see Matter of Gerald W., 12 AD3d 522, 523). The amended disposition was appropriate in light of, inter alia, the nature of the incident and the recommendations made in the probation report ( see Matter of Oneil D., 35 AD3d 602; Matter of Julissa R., 30 AD3d 526; Matter of Gerald W, 12 AD3d 522; Matter of Steven R., 230 AD2d 745 [1996]).