Opinion
June 23, 1997
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The placement of the child was extended by a subsequent order from which no appeal was taken. Thus, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child with the petitioner is dismissed as academic ( see, Matter of Eddie E., 219 A.D.2d 719; Matter of Ana P., 215 A.D.2d 485).
However, the appeals from the finding of neglect and the expired order of protection are not academic since a finding of neglect constitutes a "permanent and significant stigma" and potential future consequences may flow from the adjudication ( see, Matter of Eddie E., supra, at 719; see also, Matter of Grossman v Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767). The Family Court's determination in this case was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). Where, as here, issues of credibility were presented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference ( see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777; Matter of Racielli C., 215 A.D.2d 477, 478). The evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the mother's use of excessive corporal punishment constituted neglect.
Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.