Opinion
506 CAF 18–02324
04-24-2020
In the MATTER OF MICHAEL S. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Charle S., Respondent–Appellant.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. JOHN L. TRIGILIO, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
JOHN L. TRIGILIO, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order by which Family Court, inter alia, revoked a suspended judgment entered upon her admission that she had permanently neglected the subject child and terminated her parental rights with respect to that child. We affirm. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court's determination that the mother failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment and that the child's interests were best served by terminating the mother's parental rights (see Matter of Zander L. [Athena L.], 162 A.D.3d 1671, 1672, 79 N.Y.S.3d 789 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 907, 2018 WL 4997547 [2018] ; Matter of Frederick MM., 23 A.D.3d 951, 953, 805 N.Y.S.2d 160 [3d Dept. 2005] ; see generally Matter of Amanda M. [George M.], 140 A.D.3d 1677, 1678, 32 N.Y.S.3d 533 [4th Dept. 2016] ). Contrary to the mother's contention, "the fact that [she] may not have understood the reasoning for or agreed with the terms and conditions in the suspended judgment did not render such provisions anything less than compulsory" ( Matter of Michael HH. [Michael II.], 124 A.D.3d 944, 945, 1 N.Y.S.3d 442 [3d Dept. 2015] ), and her constitutional challenges to the terms of the suspended judgment are unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jessica J., 44 A.D.3d 1132, 1133, 843 N.Y.S.2d 708 [3d Dept. 2007] ; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Judy M., 227 A.D.2d 478, 479, 643 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2d Dept. 1996] ). Finally, any error in excluding certain photographs was harmless because the photographs depicted a residence that the mother herself acknowledged was not an appropriate home (see generally Matter of Neveah G. [Jahkeya A.], 156 A.D.3d 1340, 1341, 65 N.Y.S.3d 851 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 907, 79 N.Y.S.3d 97, 103 N.E.3d 1244 [2018] ).