Matter of Sarah A. (Daniel A.)

Matter of Sarah A. (Daniel A.) 2013 NY Slip Op 05565 Decided on August 7, 2013 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 August 7, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2011-11892
(Docket Nos. N-00965-10, N-00966-10)

[*1]In the Matter of Sarah A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner- respondent;

and

Daniel A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)



In the Matter of Daniel A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner- respondent,

and

Daniel A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)




Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y.
(Edward F.X. Hart and Jane L. Gordon
of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan
Clement of counsel), attorney for the
children.


DECISION & ORDER

In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated January 24, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he neglected the subject children and placed him under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of one year.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of one year is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of supervision has expired; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court properly found that he neglected the subject children by selling controlled substances from the home and possessing multiple quantities of prescription drugs, cocaine, and marijuana, that were readily accessible to the [*2]children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[a][iii]; see also Matter of Jared M. [Ernesto C.], 99 AD3d 474, 474-475; Matter of Evan E. [Lasheen E.], 95 AD3d 1114, 1114-1115; Matter of Eugene L. [Julianna H.], 83 AD3d 490; Matter of Fernando S., 63 AD3d 610, 611; Matter of Paul J., 6 AD3d 709, 710; Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590, 590-591).
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, LOTT and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court