SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1033 

CAF 15-00564 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF TRISTYN R. AND ADDASYN R. 

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

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SERVICES, JENNA W. AND TREVOR W., 

PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS; 

 

JOSHUA R., RESPONDENT, 

AND JACQUELINE Z., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

WENDY G. PETERSON, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. 

MICHAEL D. BURKE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, OLEAN. 

 

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus

County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered March 24, 2015 in a proceeding

pursuant to, inter alia, Family Court Act article 10. The amended

order, among other things, granted custody of Addasyn R. and Tristyn

R. to the children’s maternal aunt and uncle.

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent mother appeals from an

order of disposition that granted custody of her child, Tristyn R., to

the child’s maternal aunt and uncle. In appeal No. 2, the mother

appeals from an amended order of custody and disposition that, inter

alia, adjudged that the mother had violated an order of protection,

and granted custody of the children, Tristyn R. and Addasyn R., to the

children’s maternal aunt and uncle. We note at the outset that the

mother’s appeal from the order in appeal No. 1 must be dismissed

inasmuch as that order was superseded by the subsequent order in

appeal No. 2 (see Matter of Tuttle v Mateo [appeal No. 3], 121 AD3d

1602, 1603; Matter of Eric D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051, 1051).

We reject the mother’s contention that the amended order in

appeal No. 2 must be vacated. The order of protection directed the

mother not to allow respondent father to have unsupervised contact

with the children. Family Court credited the testimony that the

mother allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the
-2- 1033 

CAF 15-00564 

children on numerous occasions. “ ‘According deference to that

credibility determination, as we must, we conclude that petitioner

established by clear and convincing evidence that [the mother]

willfully violated the . . . order of protection’ ” (Matter of Schoenl

v Schoenl, 136 AD3d 1361, 1362; see Matter of Duane H. v Tina J., 66

AD3d 1148, 1149; see also Matter of Da’Shunna M.H. [Delbert W.H.], 133

AD3d 1381, 1382; Matter of William S., 231 AD2d 950, 951). We further

conclude that the court properly found that there are extraordinary

circumstances justifying an inquiry into whether nonparents could

obtain custody of the children as against the mother, and that it

properly determined that it is in the best interests of the children

to be placed in the custody of their maternal aunt and uncle (see

generally Matter of Suarez v Williams, 26 NY3d 440, 446; Matter of

McNeil v Deering, 120 AD3d 1581, 1582, lv denied 24 NY3d 911; Matter

of Beth M. v Susan T., 81 AD3d 1396, 1397).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court