Matter of Sharnaza Q. (Clarence W.)
2009 NY Slip Op 08960 [68 AD3d 436]
December 3, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010


In the Matter of Sharnaza Q. and Another, Children Alleged to beNeglected. Clarence W., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent, et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), forrespondent.

Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Lisa May of counsel), and Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Sarah E. Walcavich of counsel), Law Guardian.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered onor about October 9, 2008, which placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner, withsubmission to random drug screening, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to preserve his argument that he was not a person legally responsible forthe subject children of his two daughters, and we decline to consider it (see e.g. Matter of Saraphina AmeilaS., 50 AD3d 378, 379 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]).

The court properly denied respondent's motions to dismiss these neglect petitions underFamily Court Act § 1051 (c). One child was paroled to her mother, and the other wasplaced with respondent's mother (the child's great-grandmother). Respondent repeatedly statedthat he wished to have contact with his grandchildren, and he did in fact have unsupervisedcontact with them. "The agreed-upon placement of the child with a relative did not, under thecircumstances, obviate the necessity for the court to . . . impose conditions uponrespondent" (Matter of Diana Y., 246 AD2d 340 [1998]). Moreover, given theseriousness of respondent's involvement with controlled substances, supervision by the agency isnecessary for the purpose of monitoring his conduct (Matter of A.G., 253 AD2d 318, 328[1999]). This case is distinguishable from Matter [*2]of Kirk V. (60 AD3d427 [2009]), where the person alleged to be a danger to the child had not lived or visitedwith the family for more than four years prior to court's decision. Concur—Saxe, J.P.,Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, 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.