Matter of C.B. (L.B.)

Matter of C.B. (L.B.) 2026 NY Slip Op 05718 October 6, 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 C.B., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age etc., L.B. et al., Respondents-Appellants, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Docket No. NN-07163/24|Appeal No. 7138|Case No. 2025-02873| Before: Mendez, J.P., Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ. Tehra Coles, Center for Family Representation, Inc., New York (Nardia V. Morgan of counsel), for L.B. appellant. Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York (Michael Weinstein of counsel), for M.B., appellant. Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jennifer Lerner of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Order, Family Court, New York County (Janet L. McFarland, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2025, which, upon denial of respondent parents' separate motions to dismiss the neglect petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c), dismissed the proceeding without prejudice due to withdrawal of the petition by Administration for Children's Services (ACS), unanimously affirmed, without costs. We reject ACS's argument that these appeals should be dismissed because the parents consented to the withdrawal of the petition and thus are not aggrieved. Whether the neglect proceeding should have been dismissed with prejudice was the subject of contest below and thus the issue is reviewable by this Court (see Matter of Jada J. [Reginald J.], 210 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2022]). Nor are the appeals moot, since a live controversy remains in the absence of evidence that either parent obtained the relief sought on their respective motions to dismiss (see Matter of Agustin F. v Stephanie F., 214 AD3d 450, 450 [1st Dept 2023]). As to the merits, Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the parents' respective motions to dismiss the neglect petition with prejudice pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c), since it could not have done so without first conducting a fact-finding hearing to determine that its intervention was not required (see Matter of Kirk V., 24 AD3d 277, 277-78 [1st Dept 2005]; Matter of Chandler D., 16 AD3d 684, 684-85 [2d Dept 2005]). That the child attained the age of 18 during the pendency of the proceeding and was not receptive to the court's aid does not establish that such aid is not required (see Matter of Vernice B. [Patton], 129 AD3d 714, 715 [2d Dept 2015]). Nor does ACS's voluntary withdrawal of the petition by itself dictate that the petition should have been dismissed with prejudice. No showing was made that the petition was filed to harass or annoy respondents, or that ACS requested the discontinuance to avoid an adverse determination (see Matter of Samuel J.J. v Sofia L.S., 213 AD3d 612, 612 [1st Dept 2023]). We have considered the parents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026