| Matter of Najad D. (Kiswana M.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06602 [99 AD3d 707] |
| October 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Najad D., an Infant. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Kiswana M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Najaf D., anInfant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Kiswana M., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Nadra Shawnna D., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Kiswana M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andNorman Corenthal of counsel), for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Elkins, J.), dated June 25, 2010, as, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a fact-finding order ofthe same court dated March 4, 2009, finding that she neglected the subject children, and after adispositional hearing, placed the subject children with the Commissioner of Social Services ofKings County until the next permanency hearing to be held on November 23, 2010. The appealbrings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 4, 2009.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subjectchildren with the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County until the next permanencyhearing to be held November 23, 2010, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.[*2]
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition asplaced the subject children with the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County until thenext permanency hearing to be held on November 23, 2010, must be dismissed as academic, asthe period of placement has already expired (see Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501 [2008]). In addition, duringthe pendency of this appeal, the subject children were returned to the appellant mother.Nevertheless, the neglect findings against the appellant are not academic, since an adjudication ofneglect and/or derivative neglect constitutes "a permanent and significant stigma which mightindirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings" (id. at 501-502; see Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538, 539-540 [2007]). We conclude that the Family Court's findings of fact are supported bya preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Iouke H. [Terrence H.], 94 AD3d 889, 891 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88AD3d 1006, 1007 [2011]; Matter ofJavon T., 64 AD3d 608, 608-609 [2009]; Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit, academic, or not properly before thisCourt. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.