Matter of T.G. (T.G.)

Matter of T.G. (T.G.) 2026 NY Slip Op 05852 October 8, 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 T.G. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent, T.G., Respondent-Appellant. Decided and Entered: October 08, 2026 Docket No. N-03604/25 N-03605/25|Appeal No. 7177|Case No. 2025-03520 2025-04151| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, JJ. The Law Office of Bryan Greenberg, LLC, New York (Bryan Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child T.G. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the child J.G. [*1] Order, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on June 2, 2025, which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, denied respondent mother's application for the return of the subject children to her care pending a fact-finding hearing on the issue of neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's finding that returning the children to the mother's care pending the outcome of this neglect proceeding would pose an imminent risk to the children's life or health, and that the risk could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal (see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Kyng F. [Kareem F.], 203 AD3d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2022]). The hearing evidence established that on April 24, 2025, the subject children, who were then five and eight years old, were left alone in the mother's apartment for about two hours without supervision, which placed them in imminent danger of physical or emotional harm (see Matter of Jesiel C.V. [Rosalie V.], 189 AD3d 568, 568 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied — NY3d —, 2021 NY Slip Op 63571 [2021]). The mother's failure to realize that young children should not be left unattended in a locked apartment demonstrates a lapse in parental judgment (see Matter of Dream F. [Phillystina R.], 187 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 962 [2021]). Further, that the children did not suffer injury while in the mother's care does not preclude a finding that the children's life or health would be at imminent risk if returned to her care (see Matter of Jackie B. [Pamela G.], 126 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2015]). The testimony of ACS's caseworker, who was assigned to the family for about two years before the hearing, established that the mother was previously arrested after a neighbor found the older child alone, sick, and unattended, that the caseworker spoke with the mother about leaving her two children home alone, and that the mother declined preventive services including homemaking before the April 24, 2025 incident. The testimony also established that ACS undertook reasonable efforts before the children's removal from the mother's care to make it possible for them to safely remain in her care (see Family Ct Act § 1028[b]). We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 8, 2026