Opinion
2011-12-8
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for Administration for Children's Services, respondent.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for Administration for Children's Services, respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.
Orders of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2010 and June 21, 2010, which determined that appellant Vito L. had neglected Anastacia L., Andrew L., Brandon L., Kyle M. and Douglas D., and that he had derivatively neglected Daphne L., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 21, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The findings of neglect, including the finding of derivative neglect, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant, a level-three sex offender who committed past sex offenses against children, exposed the subject children to imminent danger of impairment by failing to complete sex offender treatment, despite the fact that such treatment was recommended in connection with a prior neglect proceeding, and by seeing the children without supervision ( see Matter of Christopher C., 73 A.D.3d 1349, 900 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2010]; Matter of Ahmad H., 46 A.D.3d 1357, 849 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2007], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1810907 [2009]; compare Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 N.Y.3d 1, 926 N.Y.S.2d 365, 950 N.E.2d 101 [2011] ).
The appeal from the order of disposition was rendered moot by the subsequent entry of orders discharging Douglas from care, granting custody of Kyle to a relative, and authorizing a final discharge of Brandon, Andrew, Anastacia, and Daphne to respondent Jennifer R. ( see Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 77 A.D.3d 505, 909 N.Y.S.2d 64 [2010] ).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.