Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's application for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see Matter of Rosario S., 18 AD3d 563; Matter of Gerald W., 12 AD3d 522). Based upon the violent nature of the crime, the recommendation in the probation report, and the appellant's disciplinary history in school including three suspensions, one of which was based upon the threat of violence against a teacher, the Family Court properly found that the "least restrictive [dispositional] alternative" was probation supervision for a period of 18 months ( see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]; Matter of Naiquan T., 265 AD2d 331). The Family Court noted that the appellant's conduct demonstrated "an increasing level of disrespect" and the appellant's family circumstances rendered it inappropriate to impose a less restrictive disposition. The requirement that the Family Court impose the least restrictive alternative disposition does not require the court to actually try the lowest form of intervention and have it fail before trying a more restrictive form of intervention ( see Matter of Naiquan T., supra at 332).