In re Samara M.

 

 

Matter of Samara M. v Felicia M.

2005 NY Slip Op 05186

Decided on June 16, 2005

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 June 16, 2005

Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson, JJ.

6353- 6353A - 6353B - 6353C

 

[*1]In re Samara M. and Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

 

and

 

Felicia M., Respondent-Appellant, Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.

 

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

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

Colley of counsel), for respondent.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Eva

Pappadopoulos of counsel), Law Guardian.

 

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2003, insofar as they bring up for review and are premised upon findings that respondent mother neglected the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act 1012(f), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 

Petitioner proved by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]) that the subject children were neglected. There was unrebutted testimony that the mother suffered from alcohol abuse, inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the children and exposed them to hazardous conditions in the home (see Matter of Jessica DiB., 6 AD3d 533 [2004]). The hearing court's reliance on out-of-court statements by one of the children was proper, the statements having been sufficiently corroborated by the caseworker's observations of bruises and scratches on the children (see Matter of Nicole H., 12 AD3d 182 [2004]).

 

Respondent's remaining arguments are unavailing. We note that her arguments respecting the children's representation by the law guardian during the dispositional phase of the [*2]neglect proceedings are not properly before us, the term of the placement directed in the orders of disposition having expired.

 

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

 

ENTERED: JUNE 16, 2005

 

CLERK

 

Return to Appeals list