| Matter of Jamoneisha M. (Ebony M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04374 [84 AD3d 650] |
| May 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Jamoneisha M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Ebony M., Appellant. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), forrespondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings-on-Hudson, Attorney for the Child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or aboutNovember 17, 2009, which, upon a finding of neglect against respondent mother, placed thesubject child with the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the nextpermanency hearing, scheduled for May 5, 2010, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it brings upfor review the fact-finding determination, and appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, withoutcosts, as moot.
The appeal from the disposition has been rendered moot by the expiration of the orderappealed from (see Matter of TaishaR., 14 AD3d 410 [2005]).
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing, inter alia,that respondent left the child with an inadequate caretaker and without providing her contactinformation, that she was responsible for the burn on the child's arm, and that she failed toadequately treat her own mental health issues (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f];§ 1046 [a], [b]). Contrary to respondent's contention, the court properly admitted thechild's out-of-court statement that the mother burned her, which was corroborated by an Office ofChildren and Family Services intake report (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112,117-118 [1987]), regardless of the absence in the petition of an allegation that respondent actedintentionally (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [no requirement to prove intentionalact]). The court also properly admitted hospital records that postdated the filing of the petition bya few days, since these records were relevant to respondent's mental health history and her failureto seek necessary treatment preceding the filing of the petition (compare Matter of Brianna R. [MarisolG.], 78 AD3d 437, 438 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011] [court properlyexcluded testimony regarding mother's willingness, post-petition, to [*2]exclude father from home]). The court also properly admitted aprior neglect finding against respondent with respect to her other child, since it tended toestablish that respondent's inappropriate actions, such as leaving her child with an inadequatecaretaker, were ongoing (see Matter of Jennifer Q., 231 AD2d 429 [1996]).Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Rom�n, JJ.