Matter of Ta Aisha H. (Terrence H.--Patrice J.)

Matter of Matter of Ta Aisha H. (Terrence H.--Patrice J.) 2012 NY Slip Op 06752 Decided on October 9, 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 October 9, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
8242

[*1]8241-In re Ta Aisha H., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Terrence H., Respondent-Appellant, Patrice J., Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Sharyn
Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy
Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about June 7, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that respondent father had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 22, 2011, which placed the child in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing, to the extent not abandoned, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's finding that respondent neglected the child by committing acts of domestic violence on the child's mother in the child's presence (see Family Court Act §§ 1012[f][i][B], 1046 [b][i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting respondent's cross examination of the child's mother concerning her prior criminal conviction and prior arrest (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969]).

On appeal, respondent does not raise any arguments with respect to the dispositional order. In any event, to the extent the appeal from that order is not abandoned, it is moot since the placement terms of the order have expired (see Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2012] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [*2]

ENTERED: OCTOBER 9, 2012

CLERK