Matter of Adena I. (Claude I.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Adena I. (Claude I.) 2012 NY Slip Op 00119 Decided on January 12, 2012 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 January 12, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman, Román, JJ.
6532

[*1]6531-In re Adena I., A Child Under the age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Claude I., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald
E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan
Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2010, which, after a hearing, found that respondent had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about February 16, 2011, which placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner for Social Services for the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the circumstances presented, the court properly found that the child's physical, mental or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][I]; see [*2]also Matter of Kayla W., 47 AD3d 571, 572 [2008]). Respondent's appeal from the dispositional order is dismissed, since its placement terms have expired (see Matter of Pedro C. [Josephine B.], 1 AD3d 267 [2003]).

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 12, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.