Case ID: ad3d_130/html/0813-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Makhi A. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Jamillah A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Ahmari A. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Jamillah A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Nasir A. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Jamillah A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Tajuddin A. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Jamillah A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)
    [12 NYS3d 562]
   Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated July 30, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, temporarily removed the children Nasir A. and Tajuddin A. from the paternal grandmother’s custody and placed them in the custody of the paternal grandfather pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

After a hearing, the Family Court properly granted the petitioner’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 to temporarily remove the children Nasir A. and Tajuddin A. from the custody of the paternal grandmother (hereinafter the appellant) and place them in the custody of the paternal grandfather pending the outcome of the instant neglect proceedings commenced against the appellant and the children’s father. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that, if the children Nasir A. and Tajuddin A. were to remain in the custody of the appellant pending the outcome of the proceedings, there would be imminent risk to their life or health, and the risk could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts short of removal (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 378 [2004]; Matter of Nowell M. [Katherine M.], 115 AD3d 746, 747 [2014]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.