| Matter of Royce K. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06020 [64 AD3d 779] |
| July 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Royce K., an Infant. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Fern L., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Bryant K.,Respondent, v Fern L. Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andNorman Corenthal of counsel), for respondent.
In a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 and a related child custodyproceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from (1) an order ofdisposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated July 1, 2008, which, upon afact-finding order of the same court dated April 17, 2007, entered in proceeding No. 1 upon heradmission of neglect, released the subject child to the custody of the father and directed her toattend various alcohol treatment programs, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated July 1,2008, and entered in proceeding No. 2, which awarded custody of the subject child to the fatherand awarded her supervised visitation. The appeal from the order of disposition in proceedingNo. 1 brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition in proceeding No. 1 and the order in proceeding No. 2are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's contentions that the Family Treatment Court is unconstitutional and that herright to due process was violated are unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Larry B., 39 AD3d399 [2007]; Matter of Jesus M.,20 AD3d 479, 480 [2005]; Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508, 509[2002]; Matter of Jamel Isaiah R.,18 AD3d 558 [2005]; Matterof Vanessa F., 9 AD3d 464 [2004]).
Moreover, the record reflects that the award of custody to the father was in the subject child'sbest interests (see Matter of Conforti vConforti, 46 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]; Matter of Anderson v Sparks, 18 AD3d 656, 656-657 [2005]). Tothe extent that the mother contends that the Family Court erred in failing to hold a fullevidentiary hearing in connection with the orders appealed from, that contention is [*2]unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Arsenio M., 51 AD3d670, 671 [2008]; Matter of Diaz vSantiago, 8 AD3d 562, 563 [2004]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Hall, JJ.,concur.