IN RE: NYLAIH B. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), dated January 13, 2025, (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 11, 2025, and (3) a permanency hearing order of the same court dated April 11, 2025.  The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.  The order of disposition, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing.  The permanency hearing order, after a hearing, among other things, continued the subject children's placement until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the permanency hearing order is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

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

In May 2024, the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS), commenced related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the father neglected the subject children by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon them.  In an order of fact-finding dated January 13, 2025, after a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the children.  In an order of disposition dated April 11, 2025, the court, after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, to reside in foster care until the completion of the next permanency hearing, which was scheduled for September 25, 2025.  In a permanency hearing order also dated April 11, 2025, the court, after a hearing, among other things, continued the placement of the children until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court.  The father appeals.

The father's appeal from the order of fact-finding must be dismissed because the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition.  The issues raised on the appeal from the order of fact-finding are brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition (see Matter of Kamaya S. [Zephaniah S.], 218 A.D.3d 590, 591, 192 N.Y.S.3d 580;  Matter of Harmony H. [Welton H.], 148 A.D.3d 1019, 1019–1020, 48 N.Y.S.3d 787).

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing must be dismissed as academic, as that portion of the order has expired (see Matter of Luna O. [Eneudis T.O.], 232 A.D.3d 799, 800, 221 N.Y.S.3d 218;  Matter of Angelina G. [Angel G.], 220 A.D.3d 773, 774, 198 N.Y.S.3d 139).  However, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the finding that the father neglected the children is not academic, since the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma, which might indirectly affect the father's status in future proceedings (see Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 A.D.3d 569, 570, 243 N.Y.S.3d 158).  The appeal from the permanency hearing order, which, inter alia, continued the children's placement until completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court must be dismissed as academic, as the permanency hearing order has expired (see Matter of Rivka A.P. [Dana P.], 226 A.D.3d 907, 908, 209 N.Y.S.3d 149;  Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 220 A.D.3d 777, 778, 196 N.Y.S.3d 183, affd 44 N.Y.3d 394, 247 N.Y.S.3d 632, 273 N.E.3d 868).

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child is neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 A.D.3d at 570, 243 N.Y.S.3d 158;  Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 A.D.3d 682, 684, 222 N.Y.S.3d 157).  “[A]lthough parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child's welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect” (Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 A.D.3d at 570, 243 N.Y.S.3d 158 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B];  Matter of Malik M. [Taishona M.], 236 A.D.3d 1034, 1036, 229 N.Y.S.3d 234).  “A single incident of excessive corporal punishment may be sufficient to support a finding of neglect” (Matter of Sama A. [Safaa S.], 224 A.D.3d 677, 679, 205 N.Y.S.3d 159 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Berllin B.O. [Shakira O.], 215 A.D.3d 581, 582, 188 N.Y.S.3d 32).

Here, the Family Court's determination that ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the children by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon them is supported by the record (see Matter of Samynee L. [Tashae T.], 243 A.D.3d at 570–571, 243 N.Y.S.3d 158;  Matter of Sama A. [Safaa S.], 224 A.D.3d at 679, 205 N.Y.S.3d 159).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.