| Matter of Ronald Anthony G. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01839 [60 AD3d 482] |
| March 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Ronald Anthony G. III, a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Ronald G., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), forrespondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Michael D. Scherz of counsel),Law Guardian.
Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on orabout April 23, 2008, which, in a child neglect proceeding, upon respondent-appellant parent'sfailure to submit papers in opposition to petitioner Administration for Children's Services'motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b (b) (6) for a finding that reasonable effortsto return the child to his home are not required, reserved decision on the motion in order toafford appellant an opportunity to submit evidence in support of his position that a hearing onreasonable efforts is required, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
In opposition to the motion, which was based on the existence of judgments involuntarilyterminating respondents' parental rights to other of their children, appellant submitted noevidence but simply argued that due process necessarily required a hearing. The order on appeal,however, makes no ruling one way or the other as to whether there will be a hearing. While theorder does determine that the judgments terminating parental rights satisfied petitioner's initialburden on the motion, and that the burden was thereby placed on respondents to come forwardwith evidence raising issues of fact bearing on the other inquires to be made on a section 1039-b(b) (6) motion—whether providing reasonable efforts would be in the child's best interests,not contrary to the child's health and safety, and likely to result in reunification of parent andchild in the foreseeable future—the order makes no findings of fact. Instead, it affordsappellant and his corespondent an additional opportunity to submit evidence pertinent to theseother inquiries, and sets a briefing schedule and a new return date. To the extent the orderreserves decision on the [*2]motion, it is not appealable as ofright (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Granato vGranato, 51 AD3d 589, 590 [2008]); to the extent the order imposes a burden onappellant to come forward with evidence, at this juncture, absent a finding dispensing withreasonable efforts, appellant is not aggrieved thereby (CPLR 5511). Concur—Andrias,J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.