Matter of Jamar Terry N.
2007 NY Slip Op 09593 [46 AD3d 563]
December 4, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008


In the Matter of Jamar Terry N. Administration for Children'sServices et al., Respondents; Marie C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of LarmarVeraby N. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Marie C., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.)

[*1]Dawn M. Shammas, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Adam M. Kazansky of counsel), for respondentMercy First.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler, Judith Waksberg, and Proskauer Rose,LLP, New York, N.Y. [Nathan Lander] of counsel), Law Guardian (one brief filed).

In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of abandonment, the mother appeals from two orders of fact-findingand disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), bothdated January 4, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated her parental rights on theground of [*2]abandonment, and transferred custody andguardianship of the subject children to Mercy First and the Commissioner of the Administrationfor Children's Services for the purposes of adoption.

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.

The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established, by clear and convincingevidence, that the mother had abandoned the children for the six-month period immediately priorto the filing of the petitions (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; Matter of Female F., 40 AD3d 993[2007]; Matter of Saquan L.E., 19AD3d 418 [2005]; Matter of I.R., 153 AD2d 559 [1989]). In opposition, the motherfailed to satisfy her burden of proving that she suffered from a severe hardship that so permeatedher life that attempts at communication were not feasible (see Matter of Elizabeth Susanna R., 11 AD3d 619 [2004]).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court acted within its discretion interminating her parental rights without first conducting a dispositional hearing (see Matter of Miguel K., 1 AD3d438 [2003]; Matter of Tashara B., 299 AD2d 356 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman,Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.