Opinion
12-31-2014
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy Chang Park of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Steven C. Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child (no brief filed).
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy Chang Park of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Steven C. Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child (no brief filed).
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Edward W. Yuskevich, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 3, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a permanency hearing, continued the permanency goal of placement of the subject child for adoption.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the continuation of the permanency goal of placement of the subject child for adoption was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Acension C.L. [Jesate J.], 96 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 947 N.Y.S.2d 161 ; Matter of Cristella B., 65 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 884 N.Y.S.2d 773 ). The Family Court's determination to continue the permanency goal of placement for adoption had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tsulyn A. [Deborah A.], 115 A.D.3d 948, 982 N.Y.S.2d 393 ; Matter of Duane S., Jr. [Duane S.], 103 A.D.3d 645, 958 N.Y.S.2d 624 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and DUFFY, JJ., concur.