IN THE MATTER OF JAIME D

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant with the Office of Children and Family Services for placement in a nonsecure facility after he violated the terms and conditions of his probation (see Matter of Jarel S., 282 A.D.2d 681, 682). The evaluative reports indicated that the appellant required a more structured environment and intense supervision than he could obtain through community-based services, that his mother could not control his behavior, and that he had threatened school staff (see Matter of Kenya A., 237 A.D.2d 207; Matter of James S., 219 A.D.2d 569; Matter of Paul C., 210 A.D.2d 23). Family Court Act § 352.2(2) does not require that a previously unsuccessful less restrictive alternative be attempted again before a more restrictive alternative is imposed (see Matter of Jarel S., supra) or that the court try each succeeding level of intervention before ordering placement (see Matter of Tristan W., 258 A.D.2d 585, 586).

O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.