Matter of Maria S.D. (Jose S.)

2025 NY Slip Op 00908 · Appellate Division, First Department · February 18, 2025 · No. Docket No. N3936/23 Appeal No. 3708 Case No. 2024-02180

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Family Court's denial of a father's motion to vacate a consent-based finding of neglect. The court determined that the father knowingly waived his right to contest the allegations following a comprehensive allocution, rejecting claims regarding a hearing impairment and ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, arguments raised for the first time on appeal were deemed unpreserved.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Kern, J.P.; Moulton; Kapnick; Gesmer; Pitt-Burke
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 18, 2025
Docket number
Docket No. N3936/23 Appeal No. 3708 Case No. 2024-02180
Procedural posture
Appeal from Family Court, Bronx County order denying father's motion to vacate a finding of neglect.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Jose S. v. Administration for Children's Services
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

family law procedureada / disability

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Family Court erred in denying the father's motion to vacate the neglect finding despite his alleged hearing impairment.
  2. Whether the father was denied required notice under Family Court Act § 1051(f).
  3. Whether the father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warrants relief.

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's denial, finding that the father knowingly consented to the neglect finding after a full allocution and that the court was not required to accommodate a hearing impairment it was unaware of.
  2. The issue was deemed unpreserved because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
  3. The claim was rejected; ineffective assistance cannot be inferred from counsel's advice to consent absent showing of prejudice.

Key quotations

The court conducted a full allocution, stopping at various points to answer the father's questions and make sure that he had heard and understood, thus ensuring that the father knowingly was waiving his right to contest the allegations on which the neglect petition was based and that he had discussed all issues with his attorney.

Factual background

The father, who had a hearing impairment, consented to a finding of neglect after the court conducted a full allocution, repeatedly checking that he heard and understood. He later claimed he could not hear the proceedings and that his counsel was ineffective.

Procedural history

The Family Court entered a finding of neglect against the father based on his consent after a full allocution. The father later moved to vacate the finding, claiming a hearing impairment and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Family Court denied the motion without a hearing. The father appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…