William M., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent. v. << (2005)

In this child protective proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, William M. (respondent) contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.   Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that respondent was afforded meaningful representation (see Matter of Alfred C., 237 A.D.2d 517, 655 N.Y.S.2d 589).   Respondent failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the children had conflicting interests and should not have been jointly represented by the same Law Guardian (see Matter of Wood v. Hargrave, 292 A.D.2d 795, 796, 739 N.Y.S.2d 331, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 608, 746 N.Y.S.2d 692, 774 N.E.2d 757;  Matter of Lisa S. v. William S., 187 A.D.2d 435, 435-436, 589 N.Y.S.2d 547).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: