| Matter of Selena S. (Edward J.B.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03684 [106 AD3d 1017] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Selena S., Also Known as Selena B.Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Edward J.B., Also Known asEdward B. and Another, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) In the Matter of Edward J.B., Jr.,Also Known as Edward B., Jr. and Others. Administration for Children's Services et al.,Respondents; Edward J.B., Also Known as Edward B. and Another, Appellant. (AppealNo. 2.) |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), forrespondent Graham-Windham Services to Families and Children. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel),attorney for the children.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of two orders offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), bothentered April 27, 2012 (one as to each child), as, upon determining, after a dispositionalhearing, that his consent to the adoption of the subject children was not required and thathe was not entitled to notice of any further proceedings concerning the children,including adoption proceedings, continued custody and guardianship of the children withthe foster parent.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.[*2]
In the orders appealed from, the Family Court, onstipulation of counsel, including counsel for the father, determined that, pursuant toDomestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) and (e), the father's consent to the adoptionof the subject children was not required. Accordingly the father's contentions that thecourt improperly terminated his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and/orpermanent neglect are not properly before us on this appeal, as no such findings weremade by the Court.
Moreover, the father's contention concerning the dismissal of his petition for custodyis not properly before this Court, as the notice of appeal does not reference the dismissalof his petition for custody or the docket number of that proceeding, and the order fromwhich the father did appeal did not dismiss his petition for custody (see CPLR5515 [1]; Matter of Brandon M.[Luis M.], 94 AD3d 520 [2012]; Matter of Kirdahy v Scalia, 301 AD2d525, 527 [2003]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Dickersonand Cohen, JJ., concur.