Matter of Michael O. F. (Fausat O.)

Matter of Michael O. F. (Fausat O.) 2012 NY Slip Op 09062 Decided on December 26, 2012 Appellate Division, Second 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 26, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2012-04890
(Docket Nos. N-303/12, N-304/12)

[*1]In the Matter of Michael O. F. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

and

Fausat O. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)



In the Matter of Joseph O. A. (Anonymous), Jr. Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

and

Fausat O. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Fausat O. (Anonymous), Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y.
(Kristin M. Helmers and Norman Corenthal of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane
Pazar of counsel), attorney for the
children.


DECISION & ORDER

In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 24, 2012, which directed the State Office of Children and Family Services or Lincoln Hall to notify the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services, when the child Joseph O. A. is released from its custody.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved thereby.

A person is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 "when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part," or, when someone ""asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part" (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Matthew L., 85 AD3d 917; Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792). Applying these principles to the matter before us, the appellant is not aggrieved by the order directing the State Office of Children and Family Services or Lincoln Hall to notify the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services, when the child Joseph O. A. is released from its custody, and, accordingly, her appeal must be dismissed.
ENG, P.J., ANGIOLILLO, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court