Opinion
2003-03079.
Decided June 21, 2004.
In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the maternal grandmother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), dated March 6, 2003, which, after a hearing, found that the subject children were neglected, continued their placement with the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services for one year, and extended the placement until April 1, 2003.
Izhak Ben-Meir, Rye, N.Y., for appellant.
Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz and Brendan J. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as continued placement of the children with the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services for one year and extended the placement until April 1, 2003, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as continued placement of the children with the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services must be dismissed as academic. That portion of the order expired by its own terms on April 1, 2003 ( see Matter of Garth S., 309 A.D.2d 940, 941, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 506; Matter of Nathifa B., 294 A.D.2d 432; Matter of Hope S., 278 A.D.2d 329, 330). However, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as found that the subject children were neglected is not academic, since a finding of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma from which potential future consequences may flow ( see Matter of Jessica DiB., 6 A.D.3d 533; Matter of Nathifa B., supra).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's determination that she neglected the subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][A], 1046[b][i]; Matter of Jessica DiB., supra; Matter of Nathifa B., supra; Matter of Noemi B., 273 A.D.2d 304; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Anne F., 225 A.D.2d 620; Matter of Lillian R., 196 A.D.2d 503, 504).
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.