| Matter of Niviya K. (Alfonzo M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08594 [89 AD3d 1027] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Niviya K., an Infant. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Alfonzo M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Marta Rossof counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from anorder of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 21, 2011,which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 4, 2011, made after a hearing,finding that he neglected the subject child, placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissionerof Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanency hearing, held on July 18,2011. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in thecustody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanencyhearing, held on July 18, 2011, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it isfurther,
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 subject child in the custody ofthe Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the first subsequent permanency hearing,held on July 18, 2011, must be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has already expired(see Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d501 [2008]). However, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigmawhich might indirectly affect the father's status in future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from theportion of the order of disposition which brings up for review the finding of neglect is not academic(id.).
The Family Court's determination that the father neglected his infant daughter was supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b][i]). The [*2]evidence established, inter alia, that the father knew of themother's drug use and failed to exercise a minimum degree of care to ensure that the mother did notabuse drugs during her pregnancy (seeMatter of Carlena B., 61 AD3d 752 [2009]; Matter of K. Children, 253 AD2d 764[1998]; cf. Matter of Cantina B., 26AD3d 327 [2006]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father neglectedthe child. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.