| Matter of Abigail R. (Ishwardat R.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01279 [125 AD3d 780] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Abigail R. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Ishwardat R., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Rebecca R. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Ishwardat R., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In theMatter of Jeremiah R. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ishwardat R.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Zachariah R.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ishwardat R., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) |
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andNicholas J. Murgolo of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newberyof counsel), attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Carol AnnStokinger, J.), dated October 27, 2010. The order of disposition, upon a prior order offact-finding of that court, finding that the father neglected and abused the child RebeccaR., and neglected and derivatively abused the children Abigail R., Jeremiah R., andZachariah R., and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, directed that the childrenremain in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New Yorkuntil the next permanency hearing, scheduled for April 2011.
[*2] Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic,without costs or disbursements.
The appeal is academic, as the order of disposition has been superseded by no lessthan six subsequent orders, which continued placement of the four subject children in thecare of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York through October2013, and thereafter discharged them to the custody of their mother (see Matter of Breeyanna S., 52AD3d 342, 342 [2008]; seealso Matter of Grayson J. [Sharon H.], 119 AD3d 575, 576 [2014]; Matter of Jaden J. [Ernest C.],106 AD3d 822, 823 [2013]).
Contrary to the father's contention, his appeal from the order of disposition does notbring up for review the order of fact-finding, which was entered upon his consent, since"no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party" (Matter of Lemar H., 52 AD3d602, 603 [2008]; see Matterof Shaliyah P. [Eddie P.], 90 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2011]; Matter of Mary UU. [MichaelUU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2010]). The father's contentionthat his consent to the Family Court's jurisdiction was not knowing and voluntary is notproperly before this Court because he did not seek to modify or vacate the order in theFamily Court (see Family Ct Act §§ 1051 [f]; 1061; Matterof Mary UU. [Michael UU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d at 1228).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Miller andDuffy, JJ., concur.