The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restrictive placement herein based upon the needs and best interests of appellant, his record and background, the specifics of the offense, the age and physical condition of victim, and the community's need for protection (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]; § 353.5). Three prior less restrictive placements had failed to stem appellant's persistent history of drug trafficking. Further, the present offense was committed while appellant was still receiving aftercare services from the Division for Youth (see, Matter of Jerold Jabbar L., 147 A.D.2d 928, affd 76 N.Y.2d 721, cert denied sub nom. Love v Monroe County Presentment Agency, 498 U.S. 923). While no specific recommendation for restrictive placement was made, the professionals testifying suggested placement in a highly structured secure facility for a specific period of time to provide appellant with sufficient counseling and vocational training to allow him to adopt a more constructive pattern of behavior.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.