Court Opinion

ID: 9911356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 20:08:02.047167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:33.342451
License: Public Domain

Matter of Edward E. M. (Edward M.) (2023 NY Slip Op 06482)

Matter of Edward E. M. (Edward M.)

2023 NY Slip Op 06482

Decided on December 19, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 19, 2023

Before: Singh, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ. 

Docket No. B7651/18 Appeal No. 1264 Case No. 2022-04974 

[*1]In the Matter of Edward E. M., IV, A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Edward M., III, Respondent-Appellant, Good Shepherd Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Valerie A. Pels, J.), entered on or about November 4, 2022, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent father suffers from mental illness and intellectual disability as defined in Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated his parental rights to the subject child, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner presented uncontroverted expert testimony from a psychologist that the father suffers from, among other things, a combination of longstanding, chronic moderate bipolar disorder, and incurable mild intellectual disability. The evidence further showed that he does not understand the extent of his mental illness, and, at present and for the foreseeable future, that he has a limited ability to understand and execute the steps necessary to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][b]; Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.], 70 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 80 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011]).
Contrary to the father's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, the psychologist's evaluation, which took place approximately two years prior to commencement of testimony, was not stale, and the father failed to show that more updated information would warrant a different outcome (see Matter of Brianna K.R. [Bernard R.], 199 AD3d 500, 501-502 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 901 [2022]).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: December 19, 2023