Opinion
2013-04-3
In the Matter of DIOR W. (Anonymous); Administration for Children's Services, respondent, v. Catherine W. (Anonymous), appellant.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (*787Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (*787Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the paternal grandmother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated October 21, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly found that she was a “[p]erson legally responsible” for the care of the subject child and, as such, was a proper party to the child protective proceeding (Family Ct. Act § 1012[g]; see Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228;Matter of Alfredo T., 61 A.D.3d 690, 691, 875 N.Y.S.2d 912;Matter of Lillian C., 8 A.D.3d 270, 271, 777 N.Y.S.2d 683;Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 A.D.2d 611, 612–613, 696 N.Y.S.2d 274;Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 A.D.2d 594, 595, 635 N.Y.S.2d 278). Furthermore, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was neglected by the appellant ( see generally Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). The evidence established that because of the appellant's mental condition and her resistance to efforts to help her care for the child, the child was neglected within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012(f) ( see Matter of Andrew B. [ Deborah B.], 73 A.D.3d 1036, 900 N.Y.S.2d 661;Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 A.D.3d 501, 861 N.Y.S.2d 133;Matter of Marie L., 276 A.D.2d 698, 699, 714 N.Y.S.2d 345;Matter of Danielle C., 253 A.D.2d 431, 432, 676 N.Y.S.2d 611).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or unpreserved for appellate review.