ALFREDO v. MIGUEL

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 2008-04963, (Docket Nos. N-23041-06, N-23042-06, N-23043-06, N-23044-06, N-23045-06, N-23046-06).

Attorney(S)

Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider D. Olgow and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Harris of counsel), attorney for the children.

Judges

Reinaldo E. Rivera
Randall T. Eng

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

In the Matter of ALFREDO T., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of ALLAN P, a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of LETICIA T.-P, a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of MICHAEL P, a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of ARLY P, a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of NELLY T.P., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent; MIGUEL P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 6.).

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services until November 21, 2008 is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order of disposition expired by its own terms; and it is further,

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

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly found that he was a "[p]erson legally responsible" for the care of the subject children and, as such, was a proper party to the subject child protective proceedings (Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]; see Matter of Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790, 797; Matter of Lillian C., 8 AD3d 270, 271; Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 AD2d 611, 612-613; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 AD2d 594, 595).

Comments