| Matter of Matthew Niko M. (Niko M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05183 [85 AD3d 544] |
| June 16, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Matthew Niko M., an Infant. Niko M., Appellant;Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), for respondents. Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Myron D. Rumeld of counsel), Attorney for theChild.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on orabout May 21, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, committed custody and guardianship ofthe subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We previously determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding thatrespondent's consent was not required for the adoption of the child (see Matter of Mathew Niko M. [NikoM.], 71 AD3d 440 [2010]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's subsequent determination that thechild's best interests would be served by freeing him for adoption (see Matter of Star LeslieW., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The record shows that respondent has not seen the childin years and has little insight into his needs. By contrast, the child is in a stable foster homewhere his special needs are being met and where he wishes to remain (see Matter of Chandel B., 58 AD3d547, 548 [2009]).
Respondent's request for a suspended judgment was raised for the first time on appeal, andtherefore is unpreserved (see Matter ofOmar Saheem Ali J. [Matthew J.], 80 AD3d 463 [2011]). In any event, a suspendedjudgment is not warranted. The record shows that respondent has not adequately planned for thechild's future, and that the child's needs are currently being met in his foster home (id.).
We decline to review respondent's argument that Family Court erred in granting an order ofprotection against him with respect to the child's half brother, since respondent never appealedfrom that order. In any event, were we to review it, we would reject it. Family Court had theauthority to grant the order of protection, given that respondent was a member of the half child'shousehold (see Family Ct Act § 1056 [4]; § 812 [1] [d]). Respondent's dueprocess rights were not violated by the issuance of the order. Indeed, respondent's counsel waspresent at the hearing [*2]and objected before the order wasissued. There was sufficient evidence supporting the order, including statements the half brothermade to the staff at Bellevue Hospital regarding respondent's sexual abuse. Concur—Tom,J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.