Opinion
529 CAF 17–02141
05-03-2019
In the MATTER OF ABIGAIL H. and Breanna D. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Daniel D., Respondent–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MAGGIE SEIKALY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. COURTNEY S. RADICK, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MAGGIE SEIKALY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
COURTNEY S. RADICK, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent father appeals from an order that, following his admission of permanent neglect, adjudged the subject children permanently neglected and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated his parental rights. We affirm. Preliminarily, we note that the portion of the order finding permanent neglect was entered on the admission and consent of the father, and the father never moved to vacate that finding or to withdraw his admission or consent. Thus, the father's contention that his admission was not knowing or voluntary, which is raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before us (see Matter of Kh'Niayah D. [Niani J.], 155 A.D.3d 1649, 1650, 63 N.Y.S.3d 800 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 1414704 [2018] ; Matter of Xavier O.V. [Sabino V.], 117 A.D.3d 1567, 1567, 985 N.Y.S.2d 810 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 4454959 [2014] ; see also Matter of Dah'Marii G. [Cassandra G.], 156 A.D.3d 1479, 1480, 65 N.Y.S.3d 840 [4th Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Martha S. [Linda M.S.], 126 A.D.3d 1496, 1497, 6 N.Y.S.3d 373 [4th Dept. 2015], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 26 N.Y.3d 941, 17 N.Y.S.3d 58, 38 N.E.3d 800 [2015] ).
Furthermore, the father's contention concerning the audio recordings of the proceedings is not properly before us inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 985, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 1994] ). In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the few gaps in the transcripts attributable to inaudible portions of the recordings are not significant and do not preclude meaningful appellate review (see Matter of Haly S.W., 141 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 34 N.Y.S.3d 919 [4th Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 A.D.3d 1848, 1849, 902 N.Y.S.2d 739 [4th Dept. 2010] ; Matter of Savage v. Cota, 66 A.D.3d 1491, 1492, 885 N.Y.S.2d 798 [4th Dept. 2009] ).