| Matter of Marisela N. v Lacy M.S. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04053 [118 AD3d 449] |
| June 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Marisela N.,Respondent, v Lacy M.S., Appellant. |
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), forappellant.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Susan Cordaro ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or aboutNovember 9, 2012, which, inter alia, denied appellant paternal grandmother's motion tovacate a two-year order of protection for the benefit of the subject children andpetitioner-respondent mother, dated January 19, 2012, issued after a hearing,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although the order of protection has expired, the appeal is not moot because thegrandmother continues to suffer a permanent and enduring stigma from the order and theunderlying findings against her (see Matter of Diallo v Diallo, 68 AD3d 411 [1st Dept2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 854 [2010]). Nor does collateral estoppel bar herfrom raising her appellate claim since the consequences of the order of protection werenot a significant part of her argument before this Court on her direct appeal from theorder of protection (see Matterof Marisela N. v Lacy M.S., 101 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2012]; Ventur Group, LLC v Finnerty,80 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2011]).
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying appellant's motion to vacateits prior order and for a new hearing based on the alleged ineffective assistance ofcounsel, who, she alleged, declined to present certain evidence at the original hearing. Asthe court noted, the attorney actively advocated for his client at the hearing, presentedtestimony, cross-examined witnesses, and disagreements between the attorney and hisclient were not evident. After [*2]reviewing the evidencethe attorney declined to offer at the hearing, the court properly found that it would nothave changed the result, and, in fact, was mostly unfavorable to appellant.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick,JJ.