| Matter of Jamakie B. (Gwendolyn J.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05539 [119 AD3d 939] |
| July 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Jamakie B. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Gwendolyn J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Jazlinne M. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; GwendolynJ., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Green J. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Gwendolyn J., Appellant. (Proceeding No.3.) |
Elliot Green, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Mark Dellaquilaof counsel), attorney for the children.
In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an amended order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), datedMay 31, 2013, as, upon granting the petitioner's motion for summary judgment on theissue of derivative neglect, determined that the mother derivatively neglected the subjectchildren, and placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York until completion of the next permanency hearing.
Ordered that the amended order of fact-finding and disposition is reversed insofar asappealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted tothe Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The mother contends, and the attorney for the children and the petitioner concede,that the Family Court incorrectly granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgmenton the issue of derivative neglect, based upon prior adjudications of neglect against themother that were made with respect to several of the mother's other children who are notthe subject of these proceedings, and [*2]which wererendered more than 10 years prior to the entry of the order appealed from. Under thecircumstances of this case, we agree with the mother that the prior adjudications ofneglect are too remote in time to sustain findings of derivative neglect in theseproceedings (see Matter of DanaT. [Anna D.], 71 AD3d 1376 [2010]). Accordingly, the petitioner's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of derivative neglect should not have been granted, andwe remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a fact-finding hearing on theissue of derivative neglect.
The mother's remaining contention regarding the hearing held pursuant to FamilyCourt Act § 1028 is not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.P., Chambers,Lott and Duffy, JJ., concur.