In re Richard S.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation14 N.Y.S.3d 400,130 A.D.3d 630,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05685
Docket Number N-14862-12,2014-00445, N-21455-12, N-21469-12, N-21483-12, Docket Nos. N-14861-12, N-21453-12, N-14867-12, 2014-00446 , N-21465-12, N-14868-12, N-21449-12
PartiesIn the Matter of RICHARD S. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent-appellant; Lacey P. (Anonymous), et al., appellants-respondents. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Scarlett S. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent-appellant; Lacey P. (Anonymous), et al., appellants-respondents. (Proceeding No. 2).
Decision Date01 July 2015

130 A.D.3d 630
14 N.Y.S.3d 400
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05685

In the Matter of RICHARD S. (Anonymous).

Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent-appellant;
Lacey P. (Anonymous), et al., appellants-respondents.
(Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Scarlett S. (Anonymous).


Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent-appellant;
Lacey P. (Anonymous), et al., appellants-respondents.
(Proceeding No. 2).

2014-00445
2014-00446
Docket Nos.
N-14861-12
N-14862-12
N-14867-12
N-14868-12
N-21449-12
N-21453-12
N-21455-12
N-21465-12
N-21469-12
N-21483-12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 1, 2015.


14 N.Y.S.3d 402

Marina M. Martielli, East Quogue, N.Y., for appellant-respondent Lacey P.

Heather A. Fig, Bayport, N.Y., for appellant-respondent Richard S.

Judd & Moss, P.C., Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Francine H. Moss of counsel), for appellant-respondent Vicki P.

Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the children.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

130 A.D.3d 630

Appeals from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Caren Loguerico, J.), dated December 12, 2013,

130 A.D.3d 631

and appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of that court dated December 20, 2013. The order dated December 12, 2013, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, denied that branch of the mother's motion which was to dismiss the petition alleging that she neglected the children by her misuse and abuse of prescription medication. The order of fact-finding and disposition dated December 20, 2013, after the fact-finding hearing, in effect, dismissed the petitions alleging that the father, the mother, and the maternal grandmother abused the child Richard S. and derivatively neglected the child Scarlett S., and the petition alleging that the father neglected the children by his misuse and abuse of prescription medication and failure to protect the children from the misuse and abuse of prescription medication by the mother, and found that the father, the mother, and the maternal grandmother medically neglected the child Richard S. and thereby derivatively neglected the child Scarlett S., and that the mother neglected the subject children by her misuse and abuse of prescription medication, and, upon the parties' consent, placed the subject children in the custody of the Suffolk County Commissioner of Social Services and kinship foster care of the paternal grandmother.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the petitioner's notice of cross-appeal from the order dated December 12, 2013, is deemed a premature notice of cross-appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see CPLR 5520 [c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeals by the father, the mother, and the maternal grandmother from the order dated December 12, 2013, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from the intermediate order dated December 12, 2013, must be dismissed because that order is not appealable as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Family Ct. Act § 1112[a] ), and any possibility of taking a direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the order of fact-finding and disposition. The issues raised on the appeals from the intermediate order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals and cross appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition

14 N.Y.S.3d 403

(see CPLR 5501[a][1] ; Family Ct. Act § 1118 ).

In August 2012, the petitioner filed separate neglect petitions

130 A.D.3d 632

against the mother and the father. The respective petitions alleged that the mother and father each neglected both of the subject children, Richard S., born March 3, 2011 (hereinafter Ricky), and Scarlett S., born April 4, 2007, by their alleged misuse and abuse of prescription medication prior to and in August 2012. In December 2012, the petitioner filed two petitions, one as to each child, against the father, two petitions, one as to each child, against the mother, and two petitions, one as to each child, against the maternal grandmother. The respective petitions relating to Ricky alleged that the mother, the father, and the maternal grandmother physically abused him, in that he suffered a perforated bowel and fractures to his left leg and left arm and bruises, which were allegedly nonaccidental in nature. The respective petitions relating to Scarlett alleged that she was thereby derivatively neglected.

The Family Court, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, dismissed the petitions alleging that the mother, the father, and the maternal grandmother physically abused Ricky, and thereby derivatively neglected Scarlett, and dismissed the petition against the father alleging that he neglected the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • In re Jada S.
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • November 24, 2015
    ...The Second Department has held that failure to seek timely medical attention can constitute medical neglect. See Matter of Richard S ., 130 A.D.3d 630 (2nd Dep't 2015). The Court's focus must be on whether the parent has provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for their child in ......
  • In re Mia G.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 18, 2017
    ...and was advised to immediately take her to the emergency room, he waited a full day before doing so (see Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.], 130 A.D.3d 630, 14 N.Y.S.3d 400 ; Matter of Jaelin L. [Kimrenee C.], 126 A.D.3d 795, 5 N.Y.S.3d 246 ; 146 A.D.3d 884Matter of I–Conscious R. [George S.],......
  • Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Gary R. (In re Judah S.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 10, 2020
    ...derivative neglect as to Judah (see Matter of Mia G. [William B.], 146 A.D.3d at 884, 45 N.Y.S.3d 516 ; Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.], 130 A.D.3d 630, 634, 14 N.Y.S.3d 400 ; Matter of Jaelin L. [Kimrenee C.], 126 A.D.3d at 797, 5 N.Y.S.3d 246 ). DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and WOOTEN, JJ.,...
  • Rebecca S.-C. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Ashley S.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 16, 2018
    ...(see Matter of Madison M. [Jennifer P.], 140 A.D.3d 631, 632, 33 N.Y.S.3d 268 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Richard S. [Lacey P.], 130 A.D.3d 630, 632–633, 14 N.Y.S.3d 400 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 906, 2015 WL 5446020 [2015] ; Matter of Michelle S., 195 A.D.2d 721, 722, 600 N.Y.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT