| Matter of Emanuel Q. (Luis M.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04593 [73 AD3d 1181] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Emanuel Q., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Luis M.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow andSuzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appealsfrom (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated May 4, 2009,which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child, and (2) an order of dispositionof the same court, also dated May 4, 2009, which, upon the fact-finding order, and after ahearing, placed the child with the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New Yorkthrough the next permanency hearing.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in thecustody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York through the nextpermanency hearing is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of theCommissioner of Social Services of the City of New York through the next permanency hearingmust be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of IfeiyeO., 53 AD3d 501 [2008]). However, the appeal from the portion of the order of dispositionwhich brings up for review the finding of neglect is not academic (id.).[*2]
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court'sfinding of neglect against him was supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Madison H.,66 AD3d 898 [2009]; Matter of Dimitriy R., 39 AD3d 866 [2007]). Prudenti, P.J.,Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.