IN RE: KWESI H. and Others

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: KWESI H. and Others, Dependent Children under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Sharnette T., et al., Respondents-Appellants, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided: February 28, 2006

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, SULLIVAN, SWEENY, MALONE, JJ. Geoffrey P. Berman, Mamaroneck, for Sharnette T., appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Hastings-on-Hudson (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for Mark H., appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), Law Guardian.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondents mother and father, inter alia, abused Kwesi H. and derivatively abused Menelik H. and Judinyah H., placed the subject children in the custody of petitioner Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed insofar as it brings up the fact-finding determination, and the appeal otherwise dismissed as moot, without costs.

 The placement has been rendered moot by the expiration of the dispositional order from which respondents appeal (see Matter of Taisha R., 14 A.D.3d 410, 788 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2005] ).   A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's findings of abuse, including a showing that one of the children suffered severe burns and another suffered an arm broken in two places (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][ii];  Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243-245, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168 [1993];  Matter of Benjamin L., 9 A.D.3d 153, 780 N.Y.S.2d 8 [2004];  Matter of Nicole H., 12 A.D.3d 182, 183, 783 N.Y.S.2d 575 [2004] ), and neglect (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][ii];  Matter of Nyomi A.D., 10 A.D.3d 684, 685-686, 783 N.Y.S.2d 596 [2004];  Matter of Jorge S., 211 A.D.2d 513, 621 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1995] ).   Were we to review the placement issue, we would find it clear that the best interests of the children would not have been served by returning them to appellants.