AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY O. (ANONYMOUS). WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, respondent; and LILLIAN O. (ANONYMOUS), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1). IN THE MATTER NICHOLAS K. (ANONYMOUS). WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, respondent; LILLIAN O. (ANONYMOUS), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2). IN THE MATTER OF TABITHA K. (ANONYMOUS). WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, respondent; LILLIAN O. (ANONYMOUS), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3).

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as continued placement of the children with the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services for one year and extended the placement until April 1, 2003, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

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

The appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as continued placement of the children with the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services must be dismissed as academic. That portion of the order expired by its own terms on April 1, 2003 ( see Matter of Garth S., 309 A.D.2d 940, 941, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 506; Matter of Nathifa B., 294 A.D.2d 432; Matter of Hope S., 278 A.D.2d 329, 330). However, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as found that the subject children were neglected is not academic, since a finding of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma from which potential future consequences may flow ( see Matter of Jessica DiB., 6 A.D.3d 533; Matter of Nathifa B., supra).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's determination that she neglected the subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][A], 1046[b][i]; Matter of Jessica DiB., supra; Matter of Nathifa B., supra; Matter of Noemi B., 273 A.D.2d 304; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Anne F., 225 A.D.2d 620; Matter of Lillian R., 196 A.D.2d 503, 504).

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY O
(Jun 21, 2004)