From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Myisha B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2878.

May 25, 2010.

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2008, to the extent it determined that respondent father neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the appeal from the dispositional part of the order, which directed that the child be released to the mother's custody with nine-month supervision and that respondent be placed under supervision of the Commissioner of Social Services until August 12, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 3, 2008, which denied respondent's motion for recusal, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Darryl B., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), Law Guardian.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


Respondent's challenge to the dispositional part of the order has been rendered moot by the expiration of the terms of the order ( see Matter of Taisha R., 14 AD3d 410). The denial of his motion for recusal is not appealable as of right ( see Family Ct Act § 1112).

The finding that respondent neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]), including a social work expert's testimony based on independent observations of the child, the child's statements to the expert corroborating her prior, consistent, independently recalled out-of-court statements ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]), and the child's statement s to an agency caseworker and a family friend ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124; Matter of Pearl M., 44 AD3d 348, 349; Matter of R./B. Children, 256 AD2d 96; Matter of Najam M., 232 AD2d 281, 282).

We have considered the respondent father's remaining arguments and find them without merit.


Summaries of

In re Myisha B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Myisha B

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MYISHA B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. DARRYL B.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 25, 2010

Citations

73 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4452
900 N.Y.S.2d 863

Citing Cases

IN MATTER OF KENNEDIE M.

The Attorney for the Children contends only that the court should have ordered the father to obtain sexual…

Erie Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kemberly M. (In re Kennedie M.)

The Attorney for the Children contends only that the court should have ordered the father to obtain sexual…