Matter of Lashina P.
2008 NY Slip Op 05334 [52 AD3d 293] [52 AD3d 293]
June 10, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 13, 2008


In the Matter of Lashina P., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Anderson J., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent, et al.,Respondent.

[*1]Elisa Barnes, New York, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel),for Administration for Children's Services, respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), LawGuardian.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on orabout May 24, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, upon a fact-finding determination thatrespondent father neglected the subject child, placed the child in the custody of theCommissioner of Social Services pending the completion of the next permanency hearingscheduled for October 10, 2007, unanimously affirmed insofar as it brings up for review thefact-finding determination, and the appeal otherwise dismissed as moot, without costs.

The challenge to the disposition is moot, where the terms of the order have expired and thechild has since been discharged to respondent and her mother (see Matter of Clifford J.,238 AD2d 244 [1997]).

The finding that respondent neglected his daughter was supported by a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). The record shows that the mother wasdiagnosed with mild mental retardation and could not care for the child on her own, and that,despite being made aware of the mother's limitations, respondent believed that she could care forthe child and expressed his intention to leave the child alone with her. Under the circumstances,the court properly determined that the child was at imminent risk of harm (see Family CtAct § 1012 [f] [i]; see Matter of Anna X., 148 AD2d 890 [1989], lv denied74 NY2d 608 [1989]; see also Matter ofJames C., 47 AD3d 712 [2008]).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.


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.