Matter of Annabella B.C. (Sandra L.C.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Annabella B.C. (Sandra L.C.) 2015 NY Slip Op 05055 Decided on June 12, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 June 12, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
774 CAF 13-01206

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF ANNABELLA B.C. ————————————————————— ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;

and

SANDRA L.C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Lisa Bloch Rodwin, J.), entered June 5, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent had neglected the subject child.



ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID E. BLACKLEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LOCKPORT.



It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition entered on consent of the parties and the Attorney for the Child determining that her daughter is a neglected child (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]). In appeal No. 2, respondent appeals from an order settling the record on appeal. Family Court refused to include in the record on appeal the transcript of a proceeding before a court attorney referee two months after the court's determination wherein respondent told the referee that she consented to the order because she was coerced by her attorney to do so.

Addressing first the order in appeal No. 2, contrary to respondent's contention, the court properly refused to include the transcript in the record on appeal in appeal No. 1 inasmuch as the court's determination in appeal No. 1 was not based upon that information (see Balch v Balch [appeal No. 2], 193 AD2d 1080, 1080; see also Matter of Cicardi v Cicardi, 263 AD2d 686, 686; see generally Paul v Cooper [appeal No. 2], 100 AD3d 1550, 1551, lv denied 21 NY3d 855). Inasmuch as the order at issue in appeal No. 1 was entered upon the consent of the parties, appeal No. 1 must be dismissed (see Matter of Holly B. [Scott B.], 117 AD3d 1592, 1592; Matter of Cherilyn P.,

192 AD2d 1084, 1084, lv denied 82 NY2d 652).

Entered: June 12, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court