Opinion
17062-, 17062A Dkt. Nos. NN-03193/21, NN-03194/21, NN-03195/21 Case No.2022–01060
01-12-2023
In the MATTER OF ADRIANNA M.F. and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Shanikqa C.F., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2022, which, upon consent, released the children to respondent mother subject to nine months of supervision and other conditions, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 3, 2021, finding, upon consent, that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Since the orders of fact-finding and disposition were entered upon the mother's consent, she is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 and no appeal lies from those orders (see Matter of Kaylin P. [Derval S.], 170 A.D.3d 592, 592–593, 94 N.Y.S.3d 848 [1st Dept. 2019] ; see also Matter of Violet P. [Catherine P.], 199 A.D.3d 810, 811, 154 N.Y.S.3d 253 [2d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Amilleona D.C. [Olivia C.], 143 A.D.3d 608, 609, 39 N.Y.S.3d 756 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Moreover, any objection the mother had to the order of disposition is moot since the terms of the order, along with the condition of agency supervision for nine months, have expired (see Matter of Athena M. [Manuel M.T.], 190 A.D.3d 644, 645, 136 N.Y.S.3d 740 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Imiya P. [Randall S.], 69 A.D.3d 480, 891 N.Y.S.2d 646 [1st Dept. 2010] ).
Were we to review the mother's contention that Family Court should have dismissed the neglect petitions, we would find that such relief was not requested and, in any event, would have been inappropriate as the investigation and report submitted to the court by the agency found that the neglect allegations were substantiated and that there were continuing issues in the household posing risks to the children that warranted the court's continued aid (see Matter of Naomi S. [Hadar S.], 87 A.D.3d 936, 937, 933 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 804, 2011 WL 4484840 [2012]; Family Court Act §§ 1011, 1051[c] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.