| Matter of Myisha B. (Darryl B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04452 [73 AD3d 625] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Myisha B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Darryl B., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (RhodaJ. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2008, to the extent it determined that respondentfather neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the appeal from thedispositional part of the order, which directed that the child be released to the mother's custodywith nine-month supervision and that respondent be placed under supervision of theCommissioner of Social Services until August 12, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs,as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 3, 2008, whichdenied respondent's motion for recusal, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from anonappealable paper.
Respondent's challenge to the dispositional part of the order has been rendered moot by theexpiration of the terms of the order (seeMatter of Taisha R., 14 AD3d 410 [2005]). The denial of his motion for recusal is notappealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112).
The finding that respondent neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]), including a socialwork expert's testimony based on independent observations of the child, the child's statements tothe expert corroborating her prior, consistent, independently recalled out-of-court statements(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]), and the child's statements to an agencycaseworker and a family friend (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124 [1987]; Matter of Pearl M., 44 AD3d 348,349 [2007]; Matter of R./B. Children, 256 AD2d 96 [1998]; Matter of Najam M.,232 AD2d 281, 282 [1996]).[*2]
We have considered the respondent father's remainingarguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson,Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.