| Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B. (Edgar B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07232 [77 AD3d 441] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Edgar B., Sr., Appellant; New York City Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or aboutJuly 13, 2009, which, based on a factual determination dated May 5, 2009, finding that respondentEdgar B., Sr., had neglected the subject child, placed him in respondent's custody, with 12 months'supervision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Review of the record reveals that a subsequent order of Family Court (Clark V. Richardson, J.),entered on or about December 1, 2009, vacated the order of disposition and released the child torespondent (his maternal grandfather and legal custodian) "nunc pro tunc July 13, 2009." However, weconclude that to the extent respondent challenges the ruling that he neglected the child, such vacaturdoes not render the instant appeal dismissible as academic, as the adjudication of neglect stands as apermanent stigma that may impact respondent's standing in any future proceedings (see Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538, 540 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 AD3d 694, 695 [2006]).
A preponderance of the evidence clearly showed respondent to have neglected the child by failingto feed him properly, leading to a medical diagnosis of failure to thrive, and by failing to provide thechild with proper medical care and treatment for such condition (see Family Ct Act §1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Samantha M.,56 AD3d 299 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 716 [2009]; Matter of Kayla C., 19 AD3d 692[2005]; Matter of Michael S., 224 AD2d 277 [1996]). Although the court at fact-finding erredby refusing to qualify respondent's witness as an expert pediatrician (see Karasik v Bird, 98AD2d 359, 362 [1984]), the error was harmless; the witness, not having examined the child until May13, 2008, was incompetent to render an opinion as to whether he had been neglected as of May 12,when the neglect petition was filed. The court did [*2]not err in refusingto admit irrelevant medical records compiled after that filing, and because the medical evidence couldbe "readily understandable to an average [finder of fact]" (Rodriguez v Saal, 43 AD3d 272, 276 [2007]), expert testimony wasunnecessary to find that the child suffered from failure to thrive caused by improper feeding and denialof adequate medical care and treatment (see Mack v Lydia E. Hall Hosp., 121 AD2d 431,433 [1986]). The court did properly admit evidence that before the petition's filing, respondent failed toensure the child's receiving of prescribed medical treatment for his failure to thrive (SamanthaM., 56 AD3d at 300). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta andRomÁn, JJ.