Yu F. v. Admin. for Children's Servs.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2014
• Citation: 996 N.Y.S.2d 186,122 A.D.3d 761,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07675
• Parties: In the Matter of YU F. (Anonymous). v. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, respondent, Fen W. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

122 A.D.3d 761

996 N.Y.S.2d 186

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07675

In the Matter of YU F. (Anonymous).

v. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, respondent,Fen W. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

Nov. 12, 2014

Amy Mulzer, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated May 1, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she neglected the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court (Richroath, J.) dated June 4, 2013, which, upon her default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, released the child to the care of the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months.

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appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,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 the order of disposition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the finding that the mother neglected the subject child; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, the order of disposition appealed from was made upon the appellant's default, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court ( see Matter of Lucinda A. [Luba A.], 120 A.D.3d 492, 990 N.Y.S.2d 627). Moreover, any challenge to the order of disposition would be academic inasmuch as the order has expired by its own terms ( see Matter of Jessina O. [Jessica S.], 89 A.D.3d 736, 737, 931 N.Y.S.2d 900). Accordingly, on these appeals, review is limited to the finding that the mother neglected the subject child.

The Family Court properly determined that the petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother neglected the subject child by reason of her untreated mental illness, which rendered her unable to provide adequate supervision and guardianship, thus placing the child's physical, mental, and emotional condition in imminent danger of becoming impaired ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Immanuel C.-S [Debra C.], 104 A.D.3d 615, 615, 962 N.Y.S.2d 122; Matter of Isaiah M. [Antoya M.], 96 A.D.3d 516, 517, 946 N.Y.S.2d 856; Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. [Christian B.], 92...