Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in placing him in a Title III facility. Our review of the record confirms that the Family Court properly weighed the relative advantages and disadvantages of placing the appellant in a secure facility and concluded, after questioning the quality of the appellant's home supervision, that structured placement would serve his present needs and best interests (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2; Matter of Katherine W., 62 N.Y.2d 947; Matter of Anthony M., 142 A.D.2d 731). Although the appellant contends otherwise, we are satisfied that the Family Court adopted the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the foregoing concerns under the circumstances presented (Family Ct Act § 352.2). As we have recently observed, "[t]he least restrictive alternative test does not require the court to actually try the lowest form of intervention, have it fail, and then try each succeeding level of intervention before ordering secure placement" (Matter of Anthony M., supra, at 732; Matter of Daryl S., 143 A.D.2d 835, 836). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.