In re Eunice D., 111 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Eunice D., 111 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Dallas P. (Allison B.) (nyappdiv, 2020-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dallas P. (Allison B.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Similarly, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the mother, upon consent, under ACS supervision for a period of 12 months must also be dismissed ( see Matter of Jeremiah J. [Selene A.C.] , 177 AD3d at 741; Matter of Kaylarose J.H. [Rena R.D.] , 160 AD3d at 954; Matter of Eunice D. [James F.D.] , 111 AD3d at 628).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Naphtali A. (Winifred A.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, since an adjudication of abuse or neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the father's status in future proceedings, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the findings of derivative abuse and neglect set forth in the order of fact-finding is not academic ( see Matter of Baby Boy D. [Adanna C.] , 144 AD3d 1026, 1027 ; Matter of Eunice D. [James F.D.] , 111 AD3d at 628).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Maurice M. (Suzanne H.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, the appeal from the order of [*2]disposition insofar as it brings up for review the finding of neglect in the fact-finding order is properly before us, as the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the mother's status in future proceedings ( see Matter of Eliora B. [Kennedy B.], 146 AD3d 772, 773 ; Matter of Eunice D. [James F.D.], 111 AD3d at 628; Matter of Ndeye D. [Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026, 1027 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Velez v. Alvarez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Matter of Stein v Stein, 123 AD3d 730, 730 [2014]; Matter of Eunice D. [James F.D.], 111 AD3d 627, 628 [2013]), the order entered May 28, 2014, was not entered on the consent of the attorney for the children.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Eunice D. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent James F.D., (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Elijah D. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent James F.D., (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 6, 2013.
111 A.D.3d 627
Published

[*628] In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, James F.D. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which found that he had neglected the child Eunice D., and had derivatively neglected the child Elijah D., and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated May 22, 2012, which, upon the order of fact-finding, and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, released the subject children, upon consent, to the custody of the nonrespondent mother with supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services until August 28, 2012.

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 released the subject children, upon consent, to the custody of the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services until August 28, 2012, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

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

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as released the subject children, upon consent, to the custody of the nonrespondent mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services until August 28, 2012, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party (see Matter of Brian R., 48 AD3d 576, 577 [2008]). In any event, that portion of the order of disposition has been rendered academic, as it has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Sarah A. [Daniel A.], 109 AD3d 467 [2013]; Matter of Brian R., 48 AD3d at 577). Nevertheless, the Family Court’s findings of neglect against the appellant are not academic, “since an adjudication of neglect and/or derivative neglect constitutes ‘a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant’s status in future proceedings’ ” (Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d 707, 708 [2012], quoting Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501, 501 [2008]; see Matter of Brian R., 48 AD3d at 577). Here, the Family Court’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d at 708; Matter of Iouke H. [Terrence H.], 94 AD3d 889, 891 [2012];[*629] Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006 [2011]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313 [2012]; Matter of Brian R., 48 AD3d at 577).

The appellant’s claim that the Family Court should have dismissed the petitions pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c) is raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, is not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.