Opinion
2013-10900 (Docket No. B-20569-12)
11-19-2014
In the Matter of TANAY R.S. (Anonymous). St. Vincent's Services, petitioner-respondent; Robert S. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant; Tanay M., respondent-respondent.
Wingate, Kearney & Cullen, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Allyson L. Stein and Richard J. Cea of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Chas Budnick, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Wingate, Kearney & Cullen, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Allyson L. Stein and Richard J. Cea of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Chas Budnick, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated October 30, 2013. The order granted that branch of the petition which sought a determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111.ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct. Act § 1112[a] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the Family Court's determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Janelle C. [Sean R.], 88 A.D.3d 787, 787, 930 N.Y.S.2d 905 ). The father failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ; Matter of Seasia D., 10 N.Y.3d 879, 880, 860 N.Y.S.2d 760, 890 N.E.2d 875 ; Matter of Angelina J. [Frantz J.], 112 A.D.3d 932, 932–933, 977 N.Y.S.2d 755 ; Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 A.D.3d 937, 938, 946 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.], 88 A.D.3d 714, 715, 930 N.Y.S.2d 470 ).
The father's remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.