In re Holly B.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.May 9, 2014
985 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
985 N.Y.S.2d 818117 A.D.3d 15922014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3421

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 15 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

2014-05-9

In the matter of HOLLY B. and Spencer B. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Amanda A., Respondent, and Scott B., Respondent–Appellant.

David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Abraham J. Platt, Lockport, for Petitioner–Respondent.



David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary–Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.Abraham J. Platt, Lockport, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Timothy D. Haseley, Attorney for the Children, Lockport.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:


In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent father appeals from an order finding that he neglected the subject children. Initially, we dismiss the appeal insofar as it concerns the placement of the children in the custody of their maternal grandmother, upon the father's consent thereto. “No appeal lies from [that part of] an order entered upon the parties' consent” (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).

Contrary to the father's contention, Family Court's determination that he neglected his children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). “Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference” (Matter of Todd D., 9 A.D.3d 462, 463, 780 N.Y.S.2d 180). Petitioner presented evidence establishing, inter alia, that the family's apartment was unsafe and unsanitary, due to the neglect of the parents, and thus the court properly determined that the children's health was in imminent danger of impairment due to the father's actions and inaction ( see Matter of Raven B. [Melissa K.N.], 115 A.D.3d 1276, 1280, 983 N.Y.S.2d 155;Matter of Alexis AA. [John AA.], 91 A.D.3d 1073, 1074, 937 N.Y.S.2d 381,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 809, 2012 WL 1033616;Matter of Alyssa L.D., 56 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 867 N.Y.S.2d 632,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 703, 876 N.Y.S.2d 705, 904 N.E.2d 842).

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed insofar as it concerns custody and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.