Matter of J.J. (M.D.)

Matter of J.J. (M.D.) 2026 NY Slip Op 05910 October 13, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of J.J., and Others., Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., M.D. Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 13, 2026 Docket No. NN-08656-8/22|Appeal No. 7212-7212A|Case No. 2025-02789| Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Steven Banks, Corp Counsel of the City of New York, New York (MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Hannah Kaplan of counsel), attorney for the children. [*1] Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Pamela B. Scheininger, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2025, which, upon granting petitioner Administration for Children's Services' motion for summary judgment, found that respondent mother had neglected and derivatively neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 2, 2024, which granted ACS's motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition. Summary judgment was properly granted here, as there are no triable issues of fact as to whether the mother neglected the children by behaving aggressively and waving a lighter near the maternal grandmother's oxygen tank in their presence (see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182 [1994]; see also Matter of Tavianna CC. [Maceo CC.], 99 AD3d 1132, 1133 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 856 [2013]). ACS also established that the conditions that precipitated the prior neglect findings against the mother still existed at the time it filed the petitions with respect to all three children (see Matter of Jaylhon C. [Candace C.], 170 AD3d 999, 1001 [2d Dept 2019]). Family Court's oral decision changing the permanency goal from reunification to adoption is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Juan Alejandro R., 221 AD2d 183, 184 [1st Dept 1995]). Even if the court's decision on the record constitutes an appealable permanency order, it is moot due to the issuance of superseding hearing orders (see Matter of Joshua J., 44 NY3d 394, 401 [2025]; Matter of T.R. [Jaquasia G.], 227 AD3d 530, 530 [1st Dept 2024]). In any event, there is no basis to disturb Family Court's determination that a permanency goal change is in the children's best interest (see Matter of Mahkayla W. [Raheem W.], 206 AD3d 599, 601 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Matter of Natalia R. [Derek R.], 156 AD3d 576, 576 [1st Dept 2017]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 13, 2026