| Matter of Diamonte O. (Tiffany R.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02594 [116 AD3d 866] |
| April 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Diamonte O. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Tiffany R., Appellant. |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner andElizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent. Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County(McGowan, J.), dated April 24, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected thesubject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated June 7, 2013,which, upon the fact-finding order, placed the child in the custody of the Commissionerof Social Services of the City of New York through the next permanency hearing.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of dispositionand is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the childin the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York throughthe next permanency hearing 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.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in thecustody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York through thenext permanency hearing must be dismissed as academic, as that part of the order hasalready expired (see Matter ofArique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 AD3d 625, 626 [2013]; Matter of Alexandria M. [MattieM.], 108 AD3d 548, 548-549 [2013]; Matter of Jason Brian B., 33 AD3d 995, 995 [2006]). Theappeal from the portion of that order which brings up for review the finding of neglect isnot academic, however, because the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent andsignificant stigma, which might indirectly affect the mother's [*2]status in future proceedings (see Matter of Eunice D. [JamesF.D.], 111 AD3d 627, 628 [2013]; Matter of Jason Brian B., 33 AD3dat 995-996).
The Family Court's determination that the mother neglected the subject child issupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b] [i]; Matter of Evan E.[Lasheen E.], 95 AD3d 1114, 1114-1115 [2012]; Matter of Paul J., 6 AD3d709, 710 [2004]). Specifically, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingestablished that the mother resided with the child in a home in which narcoticstransactions were taking place, in which heroin was stored, and in which the child hadeasy access to marijuana. Accordingly, the Family Court properly concluded that themother's conduct posed an imminent danger to the child's physical, mental, andemotional well-being (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Sarah A. [Daniel A.],109 AD3d 467, 467-468 [2013]; Matter of Jared M. [Ernesto C.], 99 AD3d 474, 475 [2012];Matter of Evan E. [Lasheen E.], 95 AD3d at 1114-1115).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi andLaSalle, JJ., concur.