Opinion
Argued April 30, 1999
June 28, 1999
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated November 4, 1988, which placed the subject child in the custody of a maternal aunt until he turned 18 years old, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, also dated November 4, 1988, which ordered the father to stay away from the subject child until the child turned 18 years old.
Robert A. Schacter, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), for respondent.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Kenneth Rabb of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, the father's unreasonable and inexcusable delay in excess of nine years in pursuing his appellate remedies is prejudicial to the opposing party and warrants application of the doctrine of laches ( see, Matter of Tenace, 234 A.D.2d 722). In any event, the order of protection was properly made ( see, Matter of Elizabeth R. [Ramon R.], 168 A.D.2d 388; Matter of Maritza B., 164 A.D.2d 838, Matter of Erin G. [Patrick G.], 139 A.D.2d 737, 738).
DECISION ORDER ON MOTION
Separate motions by the respondent and the Law Guardian for the subject child to, inter alia, dismiss appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated November 4, 1988, on the ground, among others, that the appellant failed to timely perfect the appeals in accordance with the rules of this court. By decision and order of this court dated February 4, 1999, the branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeals were held in abeyance and were referred to the Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals; it is
ORDERED that the branches of the motions which are to dismiss the appeals are denied.