Joseph E.K. Niagara Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v.

• Decision Date: 13 June 2014
• Citation: 987 N.Y.S.2d 760,118 A.D.3d 1324,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04325
• Parties: In the Matter of JOSEPH E.K. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Lithia K., Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 1324

987 N.Y.S.2d 760

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04325

In the Matter of JOSEPH E.K. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Lithia K., Respondent–Appellant.

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

June 13, 2014.

David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.

Abraham J. Platt, Lockport, for Petitioner–Respondent.

Mary Anne Connell, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In this neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother contends that her admission of neglect was involuntarily entered because she stated during the colloquy that she would do or say anything to get her child back. Because the mother “did not move to vacate or withdraw her admission” in Family Court, however, she failed to preserve for our review her challenge to the voluntariness of her admission (Matter of Michael B., 256 A.D.2d 1208, 1209, 684 N.Y.S.2d 114;see Matter of Cora J. [Kenneth J.], 72 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 898 N.Y.S.2d 336;Matter of Nasir H., 251 A.D.2d 1010, 1010, 674 N.Y.S.2d 179,lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 809, 678 N.Y.S.2d 595, 700 N.E.2d 1231). We note in any event that, before accepting the mother's admission, the court made clear that it did not want her to admit to something that was not true, and that the mother thereafter admitted to the facts underlying the neglect petition.

The mother further contends that the court, in removing the child from her custody following the temporary removal hearing, improperly relied on evidence of her past conduct regarding an older child. That contention has been rendered moot by the court's subsequent finding of neglect ( see Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 950 N.Y.S.2d 918), and the dispositional order ( see Matter of John S., 26 A.D.3d 870, 870, 810 N.Y.S.2d 754).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.