Matter of Anastacia L. (Vito L.--Jennifer R.)

Matter of Matter of Anastacia L. (Vito L.--Jennifer R.) 2011 NY Slip Op 08817 Decided on December 8, 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 December 8, 2011
Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
6242

[*1]6241-In re Anastacia L., and Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Vito L., Respondent-Appellant, Jennifer R. Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A.
Colley of counsel), for Administration for Children's Services,
respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A.
Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.

Orders of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2010 and June 21, 2010, which determined that appellant Vito L. had neglected Anastacia L., Andrew L., Brandon L., Kyle M. and Douglas D., and that he had derivatively neglected Daphne L., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 21, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The findings of neglect, including the finding of derivative neglect, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant, a level-three sex offender who committed past sex offenses against children, exposed the subject children to imminent danger of impairment by failing to complete sex offender treatment, despite the fact that such treatment was recommended in connection with a prior neglect proceeding, and by seeing the children without supervision (see Matter of Christopher C., 73 AD3d 1349 [2010]; Matter of Ahmad H., 46 AD3d 1357 [2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]; compare Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 NY3d 1 [2011]).

The appeal from the order of disposition was rendered moot by the subsequent entry of orders discharging Douglas from care, granting custody of Kyle to a relative, and authorizing a final discharge of Brandon, Andrew, Anastacia, and Daphne to respondent Jennifer R. (see [*2]Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 77 AD3d 505 [2010]).

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 8, 2011

CLERK