Matter of Violette K. (Sheila E.K.)
2012 NY Slip Op 04601 [96 AD3d 1499]
June 8, 2012
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


In the Matter of Violette K., an Infant. Steuben County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Sheila E.K., Appellant.

[*1]Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for respondent-appellant.

Alan P. Reed, County Attorney, Bath (Craig A. Patrick of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath, for Violette K.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Joseph W. Latham, J.), enteredJuly 27, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among otherthings, placed the subject child in the custody of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent motherappeals from an order, entered upon her consent without admission, in which Family Court, interalia, placed the subject child in petitioner's custody upon a finding that the mother neglected thechild. The appeal must be dismissed. A party may not appeal from an order entered upon thatparty's consent (see Matter of Selena O.[Trisha O.—Steven R.], 84 AD3d 1648 [2011]; Matter of Bambi C., 238AD2d 942, 942-943 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 805 [1997]). Moreover, because themother never moved to withdraw her consent to the entry of an order of fact-finding of neglectwithout admission, her contention that her consent was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent isalso not properly before us (see Matterof Julia R., 52 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]; cf. Matter of Gabriella R. [Mindyn S.],68 AD3d 1487, 1487 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 812 [2010]).

We reject the mother's further contention that her attorney was ineffective in failing to moveto withdraw her consent to the entry of the neglect order. The mother "neither alleged nordemonstrated that [she] was actually prejudiced by any of counsel's shortcomings. [Her]contention that counsel was ineffective 'is impermissibly based on speculation' " (Matter of Michael C., 82 AD3d1651, 1652 [2011], lv denied 17NY3d 704 [2011]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.