Opinion
2014-05-2
In the Matter of CORNELIUS L.N., JR. and Loyatie L.L.N. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Cornelius N., Sr., Respondent–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Merideth H. Smith, County Attorney, Rochester (Peter A. Essley of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Merideth H. Smith, County Attorney, Rochester (Peter A. Essley of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven B. Levitsky, Attorney for the Children, Rochester.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father appeals from an order that terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject children. The father does not dispute that he violated the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment, but he contends that Family Court should have extended the suspended judgment for another year. However, the father “failed to demonstrate that ‘exceptional circumstances' required extension of the suspended judgment” (Matter of Demario J., 61 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 877 N.Y.S.2d 790, quoting Family Ct. Act § 633[b]; see Matter of Lestariyah A. [Demetrious L.], 89 A.D.3d 1420, 1420–1421, 932 N.Y.S.2d 401). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend the suspended judgment ( see Lestariyah A., 89 A.D.3d at 1420–1421, 932 N.Y.S.2d 401;Matter of Jonathan J., 47 A.D.3d 992, 993, 849 N.Y.S.2d 330,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 706, 857 N.Y.S.2d 39, 886 N.E.2d 804).
The father's contention that petitioner did not make significant efforts to reunite him with the children is not properly before us inasmuch as “it was conclusively determined in the prior proceedings to terminate [the father's] parental rights” (Matter of Ronald O., 43 A.D.3d 1351, 1351, 842 N.Y.S.2d 801). We note in any event that the father admitted to the permanent neglect of the children and consented to the entry of the suspended judgment, “and thus no appeal would lie therefrom because [the father was] not aggrieved, based on [his] consent” ( id. at 1352, 842 N.Y.S.2d 801;see Matter of Moniea C., 9 A.D.3d 888, 888, 779 N.Y.S.2d 685;Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 A.D.2d 1084, 1084, 596 N.Y.S.2d 233,lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 652, 601 N.Y.S.2d 582, 619 N.E.2d 660).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.