| Matter of Jordan E. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09596 [57 AD3d 539] |
| December 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Jordan E. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Mark C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Mark C., Jr. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Mark C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Nicholas C. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Mark C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Ellen
Ravitch of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Harris of counsel), attorney for
the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated October 3, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 14, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subject children, released the children to the mother's custody for a period of [*2]six months under the supervision of a child protective agency, social services official, or duly-authorized agency, and placed him under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services until April 2, 2008. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as released the children to the mother's custody for a period of six months under the supervision of a child protective agency, social services official, or duly-authorized agency, and placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services until April 2, 2008 is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as those portions of the order of disposition expired by their own terms; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence supports the Family Court's determination that the father neglected the subject children by engaging in certain acts of domestic violence against the mother in their presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007]; Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.