Matter of Nylaih B. (Raymond B.)
This text of Matter of Nylaih B. (Raymond B.) (Matter of Nylaih B. (Raymond B.)) 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 Nylaih B. (Raymond B.)
2026 NY Slip Op 04297
July 8, 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 Nylaih B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Raymond B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Khalia B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Raymond B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 8, 2026
2025-05093, 2025-05098, 2025-05100, (Docket Nos. N-11599-24, N-11600-24)
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Phillip Hom, JJ.
Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Claude S. Platton and Hanna L. St. Marie of counsel; Andrew Rosenberg on the brief), for respondent.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the children.
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, Kings County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), dated January 13, 2025, (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 11, 2025, and (3) a permanency hearing order of the same court dated April 11, 2025. The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children. The order of disposition, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing. The permanency hearing order, after a hearing, among other things, continued the subject children's placement until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court.
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 disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the permanency hearing order is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In May 2024, the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS), commenced related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the father neglected the subject children by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon them. In an order of fact-finding dated January 13, 2025, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the children. In an order of disposition dated April 11, 2025, the court, after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, to reside in foster care until the completion of the next permanency hearing, which was scheduled for September 25, 2025. In a permanency hearing order also dated April 11, 2025, the court, after a hearing, among other things, continued the placement of the children until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court. The father appeals.
The father's appeal from the order of fact-finding must be dismissed because the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of 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 disposition (see Matter of Kamaya S. [Zephaniah S.], 218 AD3d 590, 591; Matter of Harmony H. [Welton H.], 148 AD3d 1019, 1019-1020).
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing must be dismissed as academic, as that portion of the order has expired (see Matter of Luna O. [Eneudis T.O.], 232 AD3d 799, 800; Matter of Angelina G. [Angel G.], 220 AD3d 773, 774). However, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the finding that the father neglected the children is not academic, since the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma, which might indirectly affect the father's status in future proceedings (see Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 AD3d 569, 570). The appeal from the permanency hearing order, which, inter alia, continued the children's placement until completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court must be dismissed as academic, as the permanency hearing order has expired (see Matter of Rivka A.P. [Dana P.], 226 AD3d 907, 908; Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 220 AD3d 777, 778, affd 44 NY3d 394).
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child is neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 AD3d at 570; Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 AD3d 682, 684). "[A]lthough parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child's welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect" (Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 AD3d at 570 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Malik M. [Taishona M.], 236 AD3d 1034, 1036). "A single incident of excessive corporal punishment may be sufficient to support a finding of neglect" (Matter of Sama A. [Safaa S.], 224 AD3d 677, 679 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Berllin B.O. [Shakira O.], 215 AD3d 581, 582).
Here, the Family Court's determination that ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the children by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon them is supported by the record (see Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 AD3d at 570-571; Matter of Sama A. [Safaa S.], 224 AD3d at 679).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Nylaih B. (Raymond B.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nylaih-b-raymond-b-nyappdiv-2026.