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.,
Michael
A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,
Ravitch
of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara
A. Steckler, The Legal Aid
Society,
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