SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
January 19, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF TYQUON I. (ANONYMOUS).
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, RESPONDENT; AND
LINDA J. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated August 13, 2008, which, after a hearing, determined that she neglected the subject child within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B), and (2) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated March 4, 2009, which, upon the fact-finding order, and after a hearing, inter alia, released the child to the custody of the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, RANDALL T. ENG and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
(Docket No. N-22968-06)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as released the child to the custody of the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months is dismissed as academic (see Matter of Derek P., 43 AD3d 938), without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding that she neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 1046[b][i]; § 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948; Matter of Daniel W., 56 AD3d 483; Matter of Fred Darryl B., 41 AD3d 276).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
FISHER, J.P., MILLER, ENG and HALL, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.