Matter of Daniel D.
2008 NY Slip Op 10213 [57 AD3d 444]
December 30, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


In the Matter of Daniel D. and Another Children Alleged to beNeglected. John D., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services,Respondent.

[*1]John D., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), forrespondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), LawGuardian.

Fact-finding order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on orabout July 13, 2007, finding that respondent-appellant neglected his children, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

The preponderance of the credible evidence supports the finding, made after a hearing(see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]), that respondent subjected his two youngchildren to emotional harm (seeNicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 370 [2004]) by encouraging them to make falseallegations against their maternal grandfather that resulted in repeated and distressing interviewsand medical examinations, and by engaging in a campaign to alienate the children from theirmother (see Matter of Ramazan U., 303 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]). Respondent's decisionnot to testify allowed the court "to draw the strongest negative inference" against him (Matter of Devante S., 51 AD3d482 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Supreme Court properly consolidated thischild protective proceeding with the divorce/custody action pending before it given its extensivefamiliarity with the many common factual and legal issues (see e.g. Paul B. S. v Pamela J.S., 70 NY2d 739 [1987]; Kosovskyv Zahl, 52 AD3d 305, 305 [2008]). It was not a violation of CPLR 603 for the court toorder consolidation on its own initiative and without a motion having been made, where the courtgave all parties an opportunity [*2]to be heard (see Nelson vLundy, 300 AD2d 967, 968 [2002]). We have considered respondent's other arguments andfind them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta,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.