Matter of Andrew B.
2008 NY Slip Op 02144 [49 AD3d 638]
March 11, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


In the Matter of Andrew B., a Child Alleged to be Abused andNeglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Gregory B. et al.,Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lauren B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Gregory B. et al., Appellants.(Proceeding No. 2.)

[*1]Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant Gregory B.

Lansner & Kubitschek, New York, N.Y. (Carolyn A. Kubitschek of counsel), for appellantCynthia B.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary Rosenthal of counsel), forrespondent.

Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Diane B. Groom of counsel), LawGuardian.

[*2]In two related child neglect and abuse proceedingspursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father, Gregory B., appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), datedSeptember 27, 2006, as, after a hearing, found that he neglected Andrew B. and derivativelyneglected Lauren B., and the mother, Cynthia B., separately appeals (a), as limited by her brief,from so much of the same fact-finding order as, after a hearing, found that she abused Andrew B.and derivatively neglected Lauren B., (b) from an order of disposition of the same court(Hoffman, J.), dated May 17, 2007, (c) from an order of protection of the same court dated May18, 2007, which prohibited all unsupervised contact between her and Andrew B. up to andincluding May 17, 2008, (d) from an order of protection of the same court, also dated May 18,2007, which prohibited all unsupervised contact between her and Lauren B. up to and includingMay 17, 2008, and (e) from a resettled order of disposition of the same court dated May 30,2007, which, after a hearing, inter alia, released the children to the custody of the father, limitedthe mother's contact with the children to supervised visitation, and prohibited her from anyinvolvement in any decision regarding the children's medical needs.

Ordered that the mother's appeal from the fact-finding order dated September 27, 2006 andthe order of disposition dated May 17, 2007 are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as somuch of the order dated September 27, 2006, as, after a hearing, found that she abused AndrewB. and derivatively neglected Lauren B., and the order of disposition dated May 17, 2007 weresuperseded by the resettled order of disposition dated May 30, 2007; and it is further,

Ordered that the fact-finding order dated September 27, 2006 is affirmed insofar as reviewed,without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders of protection dated May 18, 2007, and the resettled order ofdisposition dated May 30, 2007, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court's determination that the mother abused Andrew B. by repeatedly subjectinghim to unnecessary medical treatment, either as a result of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy orotherwise, and derivatively neglected his sibling Lauren B., is supported by legally sufficientevidence and the preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Patrick GG., 286AD2d 540 [2001]; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Ellen S.], 215 AD2d395, 396 [1995]). The evidence established a history of repeated fabrication as to Andrew'smedical conditions, including her assertions for approximately one year that Andrew B. sufferedfrom recurring fevers, which required his withdrawal from school for the 2005-2006 academicyear. Her conduct demonstrated fundamental flaws in her understanding of the duties ofparenthood, warranting a finding of derivative neglect with respect to Lauren B. (see Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538 [2007]).

Further, the father's failure to question his wife's judgment, although he was present in thehousehold and accompanied the mother and Andrew B. on some visits to medical professionals,justified a finding of neglect with respect to him.

The parents' remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin andLeventhal, 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.