B., In re

• Decision Date: 13 December 1999
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,775 In the Matter of B. (Anonymous), Children. Commissioner of Social Services, respondent; Sharon B. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 898

699 N.Y.S.2d 898

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,775

In the Matter of B. (Anonymous), Children.

Commissioner of Social Services, respondent;

Sharon B. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department, New York.

Dec. 13, 1999.

Toba Beth Stutz, Pound Ridge, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Alan Beckoff of counsel), for respondent.

Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Patricia S. Colella of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from six orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lubow, J.), all dated July 11, 1997, which, upon six fact-finding orders of the same court dated January 28, 1997, found that she had neglected her children, and placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12 months. The appeals from the orders of disposition bring up for review the fact-finding orders dated January 28, 1997.

ORDERED that the appeals from so much of the orders of disposition as placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from so much of the orders of disposition as placed the children with the Commissioner must be dismissed as academic because the orders expired in July 1998, and no appeal has been taken from orders extending placement. Nevertheless, although the original orders of disposition expired and have been replaced by orders extending the placement of the children with the Commissioner, the appeals from the findings of neglect are not academic, since a finding of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma from which potential future consequences may flow (see, Matter of Eddie E., 219 A.D.2d 719, 631 N.Y.S.2d 745; see also, Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568).

The Family Court's findings of neglect in this case were supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Kim G., 240 A.D.2d 664, 665, 659...