Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent. v. << (1997)

 Although Family Court erred in terminating respondent's parental rights in February 1994 without conducting a dispositional hearing (see, Family Ct. Act § 625[a];  Matter of Loretta OO., 114 A.D.2d 648, 649-650, 494 N.Y.S.2d 232), respondent was not prejudiced thereby because the court, upon realizing its error, conducted a dispositional hearing in January 1995.   In the absence of prejudice to respondent, it cannot be said that the failure of assigned counsel to appeal from the initial order deprived respondent of her right to effective assistance of counsel (see generally, Matter of Dingman v. Purdy, 221 A.D.2d 817, 818, 633 N.Y.S.2d 682).   We further conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the fact-finding hearing that respondent had permanently neglected her children (see, Family Ct. Act § 611;  Social Services Law § 384-b [7] ) and that, based upon the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing, termination of respondent's parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Family Ct. Act § 623).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: