Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: JULIA R. Orleans County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; Stacee L., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Decided: June 13, 2008

PRESENT:  MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND GREEN, JJ. Shirley A. Gorman, Albion, for Respondent-Appellant. James D. Bell, Brockport, for Petitioner-Respondent. Harriet L. Zunno, Law Guardian, Hilton, for Julia R.

 In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, adjudicated her child to be neglected and placed the child in the care and custody of petitioner.   Under the circumstances of this case, we reject the mother's contention that the error of Family Court in failing to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 1033-b(1)(b) warrants reversal (see Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 A.D.3d 823, 825, 818 N.Y.S.2d 330, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 714, 824 N.Y.S.2d 606, 857 N.E.2d 1137;  Matter of Stephanie A., 224 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 637 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 814, 651 N.Y.S.2d 15, 673 N.E.2d 1242).   The record establishes that the mother did not move to withdraw her consent to the entry of “an order of fact-finding [of neglect] without admission,” and we thus further conclude that she is precluded from challenging the court's acceptance of her consent on the ground that the court failed to give the warnings required by Family Court Act § 1051(f) (see Matter of Nasir H., 251 A.D.2d 1010, 674 N.Y.S.2d 179, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 809, 678 N.Y.S.2d 595, 700 N.E.2d 1231).   Further, the record does not support the contention of the mother that her consent to the entry of the order of fact-finding was the result of duress (see Matter of Andresha G., 251 A.D.2d 1005, 674 N.Y.S.2d 226;  see also Matter of Cadejah AA., 25 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 809 N.Y.S.2d 598, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 705, 819 N.Y.S.2d 872, 853 N.E.2d 243).   Finally, we dismiss as moot the mother's appeal from that part of the order placing the child in the care and custody of petitioner for a period of one year because that one-year placement has expired (see Matter of Amber C., 38 A.D.3d 538, 539, 831 N.Y.S.2d 478, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 816, 839 N.Y.S.2d 454, 870 N.E.2d 695;  Matter of Abbi M., 37 A.D.3d 1084, 828 N.Y.S.2d 827).

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.