SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

28 

CAF 12-00078 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF GABRIELLA G. AND HADASSAH G. 

---------------------------------------------- 

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

JEANNINE G., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

KELLY M. CORBETT, FAYETTEVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

GORDON J. CUFFY, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (SARA J. LANGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

SUSAN B. MARRIS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, MANLIUS, FOR HADASSAH G.

AND GABRIELLA G. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County

(Michele Pirro Bailey, J.), entered December 16, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other

things, placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner for a

period of 12 months. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as

it concerns disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is

affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter

alia, adjudicated her two children to be neglected based on her

failure to supply them with an adequate education (see Family Ct Act §

1012 [f] [i] [A]). As a preliminary matter, we note that the appeal

from the order insofar as it concerns the disposition must be

dismissed as moot because that part of the order has expired by its

terms (see Matter of Kennedie M. [Douglas M.], 89 AD3d 1544, 1546, lv

denied 18 NY3d 808; Matter of Thomas C. [Jennifer C.], 81 AD3d 1301,

1302, lv denied 16 NY3d 712; Matter of Francis S. [Wendy H.], 67 AD3d

1442, 1442, lv denied 14 NY3d 702). The mother “may nevertheless

challenge the underlying neglect adjudication because it ‘constitutes

a permanent stigma to a parent and it may, in future proceedings,

affect a parent’s status’ ” (Matter of Matthew B., 24 AD3d 1183,

1183).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, petitioner met its burden of

establishing educational neglect by a preponderance of the evidence

(see Matter of Cunntrel A. [Jermaine D.A.], 70 AD3d 1308, 1308, lv

dismissed 14 NY3d 866). “ ‘Proof that a minor child is not attending
-2- 28 

CAF 12-00078 

a public or parochial school in the district where the parent[]

reside[s] makes out a prima facie case of educational neglect pursuant

to section 3212 (2) (d) of the Education Law’ ” (Matthew B., 24 AD3d

at 1184). “ ‘Unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences [is]

sufficient to establish . . . educational neglect’ ” (id.). 

Petitioner submitted the children’s school records and the testimony

of the caseworker, which established “that each child had ‘a

significant, unexcused absentee rate that [had] a detrimental effect

on [each] child’s education’ ” (Cunntrel A., 70 AD3d at 1308). The

mother failed to present “ ‘evidence that the [children are] attending

school and receiving the required instruction in another place’ or to

establish a reasonable justification for the children’s absences and

thus failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of educational neglect”

(id.).

Finally, we reject the contention of the mother that she received

ineffective assistance of counsel at the fact-finding hearing. “It is

not the role of this Court to second-guess the attorney’s tactics or

trial strategy” (Matter of Katherine D. v Lawrence D., 32 AD3d 1350,

1351-1352, lv denied 7 NY3d 717) and, based on our review of the

record, we conclude that the mother received meaningful representation

(see id. at 1352). 

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court