| Matter of Derek P. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06694 [43 AD3d 938] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Derek P., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek P., Sr., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Shamira P., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Derek P., Sr., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and CherylPayer of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), LawGuardian.
In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated March 14,2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 11, 2004, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant had neglected his children, extended the placement of thechildren until the next permanency hearing to be held within six months from the date of theorder of disposition. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review thefact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as extended the [*2]placement of the children is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as extended the placement of thechildren must be dismissed as academic because the period of placement has expired (seeMatter of H. Children, 276 AD2d 485 [2000]). The adjudication of neglect, however,constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant's statusin any future proceedings (see Matter of Sal D., 307 AD2d 261, 262 [2003]; Matter ofH. Children, supra). Therefore, the appeal from so much of the dispositional order as bringsup for review the determination that the appellant neglected his children is not academic (seeMatter of Sal D., supra; Matter of H. Children, supra).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect based on the useof excessive corporal punishment and acts of domestic violence perpetrated in the presence of thechildren is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d 541, 542 [2005]; Matter of Aminat O., 20 AD3d480, 481 [2005]; Matter of RichardT., 12 AD3d 986, 987-988 [2004]; Matter of Athena M., 253 AD2d 669 [1998]).Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.