Matter of Liana A. (Joseph A.)
This text of Matter of Liana A. (Joseph A.) (Matter of Liana A. (Joseph A.)) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Liana A. (Joseph A.)
2026 NY Slip Op 04188
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Liana A. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Joseph A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Rayna A. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Joseph A. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2023-08279, 2023-08285, (Docket Nos. N-12591-21, N-12592-21)
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P.
Paul Wooten
Laurence L. Love
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Christopher J. Clayton, County Attorney, Central Islip, NY (Jayne M. St. James of counsel), for respondent.
Jordan M. Freundlich, Lake Success, NY, attorney for the children.
Abbe C. Shapiro, Mount Sinai, NY, for appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Caren Loguercio, J.), dated August 29, 2023, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court, also dated August 29, 2023. The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of fact-finding and disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced these related neglect proceedings against the father of the two subject children. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the father neglected the children. The father appeals.
The appeal from the order of fact-finding must be dismissed because the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of fact-finding and disposition. The issues raised on the appeal from the order of fact-finding are brought up for review on the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see Matter of Harmony H. [Welton H.], 148 AD3d 1019, 1019).
In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]; Matter of Khamari S. [Keith S.], 163 AD3d 826, 826). "[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship" (Matter of Jaylen S. [Richard S.], 214 AD3d 885, 885 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]).
Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the children. The unrebutted evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the father neglected the children by engaging in acts of domestic violence against the mother in the children's presence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f]; Matter of Kyng T.B. [Theodore B.], 234 AD3d 682, 683). In addition, the evidence established that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the father's untreated mental health issues (see Matter of Hannah T.R. [Soya R.], 179 AD3d 700, 701) and his alcohol abuse (see Matter of Ava A. [Steven A.], 179 AD3d 666, 668).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father neglected the children.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Liana A. (Joseph A.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-liana-a-joseph-a-nyappdiv-2026.