Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Everton D. (In re Kyle D.)

Full title: In the Matter of Kyle D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 30, 2015

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-00948

12-30-2015

In the Matter of Kyle D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Everton D. (Anonymous), appellant.

Susan Jacobs (Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, NY [Howard Seife, Marc B. Roitman, and Seth M. Bloomfield], of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard Dearing and Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondent. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

L. PRISCILLA HALL SHERI S. ROMAN SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. (Docket No. N-18608-14)

Susan Jacobs (Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, NY [Howard Seife, Marc B. Roitman, and Seth M. Bloomfield], of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard Dearing and Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondent.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Mary R. O'Donoghue, J.), dated February 4, 2015. The order, after a hearing, denied the father's application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to return the subject child to his custody.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On September 29, 2014, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 alleging that the father neglected the subject child. That day, the Family Court entered a temporary order of protection against the father and temporarily placed the subject child in the custody of the mother. The father thereafter made an application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to return the child to his custody. After a hearing, the court denied the application.

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly denied his application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to return the subject child to his custody. The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child to the father would present an imminent risk to the child's emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028[a]; Matter of Madeline A. [Elizabeth M.], 87 AD3d 1132; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837).

The father's remaining contention is without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court