F., CYLE J., MTR. OF

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

F., CYLE J., MTR. OF

128 A.D.3d 1364, 7 N.Y.S.3d 779

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 2015

DocketCAF 14-00219

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 1364 (F., CYLE J., MTR. OF) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

F., CYLE J., MTR. OF, 128 A.D.3d 1364, 7 N.Y.S.3d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, J.), entered January 10, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner for a period of one year and placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Seneca County.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of disposition placing his children in the custody of petitioner upon a finding that he neglected the children by, inter alia, inflicting excessive corporal punishment and misusing a drug (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The father contends that Family Court denied him due process by allowing the children’s mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, to participate in the fact-finding hearing as a party even after she withdrew her custody petition (see generally § 1035 [d]; Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z. —Denise Z.], 71 AD3d 1246, 1250-1251 [2010]). The father did not timely object to the mother’s participation and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see generally Matter of Lucinda A. [Luba A.], 120 AD3d 492, 494 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 962 [2015]; Matter of Ashley L.C. [James L.C.], 68 AD3d 1742, 1743 [2009]). In any event, we reject the father’s related contention that the court erred in denying his motion to strike evidence elicited by the mother inasmuch as other evidence amply supports the finding of neglect (see generally Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d 839, 840-841 [2011]; Matter of Mary S., 279 AD2d 896, 898 [2001]). The father’s remaining contentions relate only to the disposition, i.e., the placement of the children and the terms of his visitation with them, and we dismiss as moot the father’s appeal from that part of the order inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Gabriella G. [Jeannine G.], 104 AD3d 1136, 1136 [2013]; Matter of Kennedie *1365 M. [Douglas M.], 89 AD3d 1544, 1546 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, J.), entered January 10, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner for a period of one year and placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Seneca County.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of disposition placing his children in the custody of petitioner upon a finding that he neglected the children by, inter alia, inflicting excessive corporal punishment and misusing a drug (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The father contends that Family Court denied him due process by allowing the children’s mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, to participate in the fact-finding hearing as a party even after she withdrew her custody petition (see generally § 1035 [d]; Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z. —Denise Z.], 71 AD3d 1246, 1250-1251 [2010]). The father did not timely object to the mother’s participation and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see generally Matter of Lucinda A. [Luba A.], 120 AD3d 492, 494 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 962 [2015]; Matter of Ashley L.C. [James L.C.], 68 AD3d 1742, 1743 [2009]). In any event, we reject the father’s related contention that the court erred in denying his motion to strike evidence elicited by the mother inasmuch as other evidence amply supports the finding of neglect (see generally Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d 839, 840-841 [2011]; Matter of Mary S., 279 AD2d 896, 898 [2001]). The father’s remaining contentions relate only to the disposition, i.e., the placement of the children and the terms of his visitation with them, and we dismiss as moot the father’s appeal from that part of the order inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Gabriella G. [Jeannine G.], 104 AD3d 1136, 1136 [2013]; Matter of Kennedie *1365 M. [Douglas M.], 89 AD3d 1544, 1546 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 1364, 7 N.Y.S.3d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-cyle-j-mtr-of-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack