Opinion
May 6, 1985
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Appeal from the order entered February 23, 1983 dismissed, without costs or disbursements ( see, Family Ct Act § 1112). That order is brought up for review on the appeal from the dispositional order entered May 4, 1983.
Order entered May 4, 1983 affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The issue of whether article 10 of the Family Court Act is unconstitutional because it allows a finding of neglect to be predicated on a standard of fair preponderance of the evidence was not raised at nisi prius and thus may not be considered on appeal ( see, e.g., Melahn v. Hearn, 60 N.Y.2d 944, 945; Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233, 241, n 4). Moreover, the requisite statutory notification has not been given to the Attorney-General (CPLR 1012 [b]; Executive Law § 71), which constitutes an independent bar to appellate review ( Matherson v. Marchello, supra, at 241, n 4). In any event, this proceeding involved a finding of temporary neglect and the placement is of a limited duration. Consequently, Santosky v. Kramer ( 455 U.S. 745) is plainly distinguishable ( Matter of Linda C., 86 A.D.2d 356).
We perceive no reason to disturb the determination on the merits. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.