In re Joseph Benjamin P.

 

Matter of Joseph Benjamin P. v Allen P.

2011 NY Slip Op 00564

Decided on February 1, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

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.

 

 

Decided on February 1, 2011 Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, J.J.

4156

 

[*1]In re Joseph Benjamin P., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Allen P., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

 

 

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ellen

Ravitch of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane

Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.

 

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Litner, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2009, which, upon a factual determination dated February 18, 2009 finding that respondent father neglected the subject child, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner for Social Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 

Although the Court has been informed that a subsequent order of the Family Court, entered on or about January 19, 2010, vacated the order of disposition and released the child to the mother and father with ACS supervision and subject to conditions, such vacatur does not render the instant appeal academic, as the adjudication of neglect stands as a permanent stigma that may impact respondent's standing in future proceedings (see Matter of Joshua Hezekiah B., 77 AD3d 441, 442 [2010], lv denied 2010 NY Slip Op 91354 [2010])

 

A preponderance of the evidence clearly showed respondent to have neglected the child because he should have known of the mother's substance abuse and failed to protect the child (see e.g. Matter of Albert G., Jr., 67 AD3d 608 [2009]). The fact that respondent father elected to turn a blind eye, or failed to inquire more fully into whatever suspicions he may have had, is [*2]no defense to the charge of neglect (see Matter of Miyani M., 4 AD3d 430 [2004]).

 

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

 

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

 

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 1, 2011

 

CLERK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to Appeals list