| Matter of Cora J. (Kenneth J.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02704 [72 AD3d 1170] |
| April 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Cora J. and Others, Children Alleged to beNeglected. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kenneth J.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Ursula E. Hall, Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Schenectady, forrespondent. Eugene P. Grimmick, Law Guardian, Troy.
Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Assini, J.),entered August 11, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's children to be neglected.
Respondent is the father of three children (born in 1992, 1999 and 2001). Petitionercommenced this neglect proceeding against respondent alleging, among other things, that, in thepresence of the children, he pointed a loaded handgun at the children's mother, threatening to killher and then the children. During the pendency thereof, respondent pleaded guilty in anothercourt to a criminal charge involving possession of a weapon as a result of this alleged domesticviolence incident. Thereafter, based upon his admission to the neglect of his children(specifically, on the basis that he violated a no-contact order of protection), Family Courtadjudicated the children to be neglected and placed respondent under petitioner's supervision.Respondent now appeals and we affirm.[*2]
We are unpersuaded by respondent's contention that hisadmission to neglect was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. He asserts that he was coercedinto pleading guilty to the criminal charge because the children's mother allegedly threatened toforce their son to testify at trial with regard to that charge. Respondent further argues that,because such threat prevented him from moving to withdraw his plea, he had no choice but toenter an admission in the neglect proceeding.
Inasmuch as there is no record evidence that respondent made a timely application in FamilyCourt to vacate the finding of neglect, his present challenge is not properly before us (see Matter of June MM., 62 AD3d1216, 1217 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]; Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d995, 997 [2008]). In all events, the record amply demonstrates that, before entering anadmission, respondent—who was represented by counsel throughout the neglectproceeding—was fully informed of the consequences of such admission (seeFamily Ct Act § 1051 [f]) and the admission was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see Matter of Cadejah AA., 25 AD3d1027, 1028 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]; Matter of William PP.,185 AD2d 397, 397-398 [1992]). Therefore, we perceive no basis to disturb Family Court'sfinding of neglect.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.