In re June MM.

May 28, 2009
Versions:62 A.D.3d 1216
879 N.Y.S.2d 633
Stevenson v. Scott

Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.), entered February 4, 2008, which granted petitioner‘s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ child to be neglected.

In June 2007, only days after the subject child was born, petitioner filed two petitions alleging that respondent Tina MM. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Vernon MM. (hereinafter the father) had neglected the child, and the child was removed from their care. At a hearing on the petitions, respondents withdrew their requests for a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 and consented to the continued placement of the child in foster care. Family Court also issued, among other things, orders of protection against both respondents, which they allegedly subsequently violated.

Ultimately, respondents each agreed to settle the neglect petitions against them in exchange for the dismissal of the violation petitions. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the mother was found to have neglected the child after she admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the father consented to a finding of neglect without making any specific admissions. After a dispositional hearing, Family Court determined that it was in the child‘s best interest to continue placement with the foster parents. Respondents now appeal.*

Initially, because the finding of neglect entered against the father was entered with his consent and he failed to make a timely application in Family Court to vacate that order, his present challenge to that finding is not properly before us (see Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). His contention that his consent was coerced is not supported by the record, nor is it problematic that he gave his consent without making specific admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; see also Matter of Julia R., 52 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]).

As for the mother, although she admitted to a previous finding of permanent neglect with respect to her older child, such finding is too remote in time to reasonably conclude that the conditions leading to that finding continued to exist (see Matter of Natasha RR., 27 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]; compare Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). However, the instant finding of neglect is nonetheless supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the mother admitted to the allegations of neglect in the petition, including that she engaged in numerous physical altercations with the father—and then pleaded guilty to those violations—all while pregnant with the subject child, thereby creating a substantial risk of harm to the child. These admissions are sufficient to sustain Family Court‘s finding of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Leo UU., 288 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 609 [2002]; see also Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]).

Finally, the father‘s challenge to the order of disposition is moot as that order expired in July 2008 by its own terms (see Matter of Andrew MM., 24 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2005]; Matter of Nathan PP., 246 AD2d 835, 835 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]). The parties’ remaining contentions, including their claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

MALONE JR., J.

Spain, J.P. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), entered February 29, 2008, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

In 1990, defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to a jail term and probation. He was classified as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to the terms of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant was afforded a reassessment hearing (see Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456 [SD NY 1998]), following which he was reclassified as a risk level two sex offender. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

We are unswayed by defendant‘s assertion that County Court‘s reclassification was not supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 24 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]). Defendant‘s guilty plea established that he subjected the 10-year-old victim to sexual contact (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Defendant contends that he should not have been assessed points for a

SPAIN, J.P.

HTML Code begins here:

Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.), entered February 4, 2008, which granted petitioner‘s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ child to be neglected.

In June 2007, only days after the subject child was born, petitioner filed two petitions alleging that respondent Tina MM. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Vernon MM. (hereinafter the father) had neglected the child, and the child was removed from their care. At a hearing on the petitions, respondents withdrew their requests for a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 and consented to the continued placement of the child in foster care. Family Court also issued, among other things, orders of protection against both respondents, which they allegedly subsequently violated.

Ultimately, respondents each agreed to settle the neglect petitions against them in exchange for the dismissal of the violation petitions. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the mother was found to have neglected the child after she admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the father consented to a finding of neglect without making any specific admissions. After a dispositional hearing, Family Court determined that it was in the child‘s best interest to continue placement with the foster parents. Respondents now appeal.*

Initially, because the finding of neglect entered against the father was entered with his consent and he failed to make a timely application in Family Court to vacate that order, his present challenge to that finding is not properly before us (see Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). His contention that his consent was coerced is not supported by the record, nor is it problematic that he gave his consent without making specific admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; see also Matter of Julia R., 52 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]).

As for the mother, although she admitted to a previous finding of permanent neglect with respect to her older child, such finding is too remote in time to reasonably conclude that the conditions leading to that finding continued to exist (see Matter of Natasha RR., 27 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]; compare Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). However, the instant finding of neglect is nonetheless supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the mother admitted to the allegations of neglect in the petition, including that she engaged in numerous physical altercations with the father—and then pleaded guilty to those violations—all while pregnant with the subject child, thereby creating a substantial risk of harm to the child. These admissions are sufficient to sustain Family Court‘s finding of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Leo UU., 288 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 609 [2002]; see also Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]).

Finally, the father‘s challenge to the order of disposition is moot as that order expired in July 2008 by its own terms (see Matter of Andrew MM., 24 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2005]; Matter of Nathan PP., 246 AD2d 835, 835 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]). The parties’ remaining contentions, including their claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

MALONE JR., J.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

think silently if needed.The user wants a legal document converted to clean, semantic HTML. 1. **Extract Case Information**: * Case Name: `In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; TINA MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; VERNON MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)` * Short Name: `Matter of June MM.` * Docket: Not explicitly numbered in a standard format, but Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 are mentioned. The OCR for page 1 shows “Proceeding No. 1” and “Proceeding No. 2“. * Court: `Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York` (Inferred from AD2d/AD3d citations and names like Cardona, P.J. which are associated with the 3rd Dept). OCR doesn‘t explicitly name the court at the top but the context of “1216” and AD citations confirms. The screenshot for page 1 shows it‘s a reporter page. * Date: `2008-02-04` (entered February 4, 2008). * Citation: `879 NYS2d 633` (bracketed in text). * Judge: `Malone Jr., J.` 2. **Handle Multi-Opinion Documents**: * The PDF starts with the end of a previous case (about a grievance/misbehavior report). I should skip this partial content. * The “MAIN opinion” starts with “In the Matter of JUNE MM...“. * There is another opinion starting on page 1218: “The People of the State of New York v. David D. Callan“. * According to the instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” * I will convert the “Matter of June MM” case. 3. **Formatting**: * Pagination starts at 1216. * Case info in `
`. * Body text starts after `
`. * Citations wrapped in `` or ``. * Footnotes marked with `` and content in ``. 4. **Citations**: * `Family Ct Act article 10` -> ``. * `Family Ct Act § 1028` -> ``. * `Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]` -> ``. * `CPLR 5520 [c]` -> ``. * `Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]` -> ``. * `Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 n [2007]` -> ``. * `Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]` -> ``. * `Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007]` -> ``. * `Matter of Julia R., 52 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2008]` -> ``. * `Matter of Natasha RR., 27 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]` -> ``. * `Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913 [2006]` -> ``. * `Matter of Leo UU., 288 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001]` -> ``. * `Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998]` -> ``. * `Matter of Andrew MM., 24 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2005]` -> ``. * `Matter of Nathan PP., 246 AD2d 835, 835 [1998]` -> ``. Wait, OCR says 1998. PDF check: `246 AD2d 835, 835 [1998]`. 5. **Rejoining Hyphens**: * `pro-cedure` -> `procedure` * `misbehav-ior` -> `misbehavior` * `hereinaf-ter` -> `hereinafter` 6. **Page Numbers**: * Start: `` * Page 2: `` * Page 3: `` 7. **Footnotes**: * One footnote on page 1217 marked with `*`. 8. **Structure**: * Skip previous case text. * Details block for `Matter of June MM.`. * Page marker 1216. * Malone introductory sentence. * Page marker 1217. * Paragraph starting “In June 2007...“. * Paragraph starting “Ultimately...“. * Paragraph starting “Initially...“. * Paragraph starting “As for the mother...“. * Page marker 1218. * Signature block. Wait, looking at the first OCR, the citation for June MM is `[879 NYS2d 633]`. This appears inside the text describing the case parties. Let‘s refine the Case Information block. Short name: `Matter of June MM.` Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` (Standard abbreviation for New York Appellate Division). Date: `2008-02-04` (derived from “entered February 4, 2008“). The document contains two opinions. The instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Usually, this means the first one that is complete. I will focus on `Matter of June MM.`. Wait, the instructions say “Multi-Opinion Documents: If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This implies if there‘s a sequence of cases, I should convert the first complete one and skip the fragments. Usually, user prompts like this expect the full set if they are all complete. However, the instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion” suggests a singular output. I will stick to the first complete opinion: `In the Matter of June MM.`. Actually, checking common usage of this tool, often “MAIN” refers to the case the user is interested in, but since the prompt doesn‘t specify, and the instructions say “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion“, I will provide the `June MM.` case. One detail: `MM., Appellant. (Proceeding 2.) Vernon No. [879 NYS2d 633]` in OCR. Screenshot says: `VERNON MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) [879 NYS2d 633]` Wait, I should check if there‘s a docket number. “Proceeding No. 1” and “Proceeding No. 2“. No standard docket number like `503241`. Let‘s start. Details block: Case name: `In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; TINA MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; VERNON MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)` Short Name: `Matter of June MM.` Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` Date: `2008-02-04` Citation: `879 NYS2d 633` Body: `` Paragraph: `Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order...` `` Paragraph: `In June 2007...` Paragraph: `Ultimately...` Paragraph: `Initially...` Paragraph: `As for the mother...` Footnote `*`. `` Sentence continuing from page 1217. Paragraph: `Finally...` Cardona... concur. Ordered... Signature block. Wait, looking at the top of page 1216, there is content about a grievance. That‘s the end of a previous case. I‘ll skip it. The “June MM” case ends on page 1218. Then “People v. Callan” starts. Following “convert only the MAIN opinion“, I will provide `June MM`. One check on Law Citations: `Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]` -> `` The brackets in the source `[f] [i] [B]` are just the way New York reports citations for statutes sometimes. I will normalize the cite attribute but keep source text. Wait, I should re-read: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This means skip the stuff at the top of 1216. Convert June MM. I won‘t convert Callan unless I think both are intended. Given the instruction, I‘ll provide just June MM. Actually, looking at the layout, Callan is also a complete opinion on page 1218. However, usually “MAIN opinion” in these formatting tasks refers to the primary subject or the first complete one. I will provide June MM. Wait, I need to check the “Malone Jr., J.” text. It starts on page 1216. OCR: `Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order...` This is the beginning of the opinion for June MM. Let‘s verify the shortName: `Matter of June MM.` Citation extraction for June MM: `Hale v Scott` - ignore (previous case fragment) `Matter of Brittany T.` -> `` `Matter of Elijah Q.` -> `` `Matter of Julia R.` -> `` `Matter of Natasha RR.` -> `` `Matter of Evelyn B.` -> `` `Matter of Leo UU.` -> `` (Wait, OCR says `711, 712-- 713`. PDF says `711, 712-713`). `Matter of Nasir H.` -> `` `Matter of Andrew MM.` -> `` `Matter of Nathan PP.` -> `` Footnote citations: `Matter of Eisner v Eisner` -> `` Wait, `lv denied` citations: `Matter of Elijah Q.` ... `lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]` `8 NY3d 809 [2007]` `Matter of Julia R.` ... `lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]` `11 NY3d 709 [2008]` `Matter of Evelyn B.` ... `lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]` `7 NY3d 713 [2006]` `Matter of Leo UU.` ... `lv denied 97 NY2d 609 [2002]` `97 NY2d 609 [2002]` `Matter of Nasir H.` ... `lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]` `92 NY2d 809 [1998]` `Matter of Nathan PP.` ... `lv denied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]` `91 NY2d 813 [1998]` `Matter of Eisner v Eisner` ... `lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]` `9 NY3d 816 [2007]` Law cites: `Family Ct Act article 10` -> `` `Family Ct Act § 1028` -> `` `Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]` -> `` `Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]` -> `` `CPLR 5520 [c]` -> `` Correct handling of “Ordered that...“: This is part of the opinion, not Case Information. Rejoining hyphenated words: `hereinaf-ter` -> `hereinafter` `misbehav-ior` -> `misbehavior` Let‘s do the HTML. ```html Case Information In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; TINA MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of JUNE MM., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; VERNON MM., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York February 4, 2008 879 NYS2d 633 Malone Jr., J. Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.), entered February 4, 2008, which granted petitioner‘s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ child to be neglected. In June 2007, only days after the subject child was born, petitioner filed two petitions alleging that respondent Tina MM. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Vernon MM. (hereinafter the father) had neglected the child, and the child was removed from their care. At a hearing on the petitions, respondents withdrew their requests for a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 and consented to the continued placement of the child in foster care. Family Court also issued, among other things, orders of protection against both respondents, which they allegedly subsequently violated. Ultimately, respondents each agreed to settle the neglect petitions against them in exchange for the dismissal of the violation petitions. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the mother was found to have neglected the child after she admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the father consented to a finding of neglect without making any specific admissions. After a dispositional hearing, Family Court determined that it was in the child‘s best interest to continue placement with the foster parents. Respondents now appeal. Initially, because the finding of neglect entered against the father was entered with his consent and he failed to make a timely application in Family Court to vacate that order, his present challenge to that finding is not properly before us (see Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). His contention that his consent was coerced is not supported by the record, nor is it problematic that he gave his consent without making specific admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; see also Matter of Julia R., 52 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]). As for the mother, although she admitted to a previous finding of permanent neglect with respect to her older child, such finding is too remote in time to reasonably conclude that the conditions leading to that finding continued to exist (see Matter of Natasha RR., 27 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]; compare Matter of Evelyn B., 30 AD3d 913 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). However, the instant finding of neglect is nonetheless supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the mother admitted to the allegations of neglect in the petition, including that she engaged in numerous physical altercations with the father—and then pleaded guilty to those violations—all while pregnant with the subject child, thereby creating a substantial risk of harm to the child. These admissions are sufficient to sustain Family Court‘s finding of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Leo UU., 288 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 609 [2002]; see also Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]). Finally, the father‘s challenge to the order of disposition is moot as that order expired in July 2008 by its own terms (see Matter of Andrew MM., 24 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2005]; Matter of Nathan PP., 246 AD2d 835, 835 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 813 [1998]). The parties’ remaining contentions, including their claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs. MALONE JR., J. ``` One correction: `compare Matter of Evelyn B.` ... the signal `compare` should be outside. The `lv denied` cites should be separate `midpage-case` tags as per “Subsequent History” example. Pinpoints: `712-713` in `Matter of Leo UU.`. Source text: `711, 712-713`. Tag should include the reporter and page: `288 AD2d 711, 712-713`. Final verification of “MAIN opinion“: If a page has fragments of an old opinion and then a new complete opinion, I skip the fragments and format the full one. I did this. I will not format Callan as it‘s a second distinct case and usually only one “main” case is formatted in these specific data extraction tasks unless requested. Wait, looking at the instruction again: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion...“. This strongly suggests one single case. One small check: `Malone Jr., J.` intro on 1216. `Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.), entered February 4, 2008, which granted petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ child to be neglected.` This looks like part of the opinion, similar to a lead judge statement. I‘ll put it in a `` tag. Citation for `Nathan PP.`: OCR says `835, 835`. Tag: ``. Law cite jurisdictions: N.Y. is `NY`. `Family Ct Act article 10` -> ``. Re-joining `misbehav-ior`: `misbehavior`. Quotes: Source uses curly quotes in screenshot. I must use straight quotes. One final check on `Matter of Nasir H.`: `AD2d [1998], [1998]). Nasir 251 1010 lv denied 92 NY2d 809`. This OCR is garbled. Screenshot for page 3: `see also Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]).` Tag: `Matter of Nasir H., 251 AD2d 1010 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]`. Double checking `Matter of Leo UU.`: `288 AD2d 711, 712-- 713 [2001]`. Screenshot shows `712-713`. Tag: `Matter of Leo UU., 288 AD2d 711, 712-713 [2001]`. Final check on court: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ. are all 3rd Department judges in 2008. One more thing: the signature block. It says “Cardona... concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed...“. Then a black block. Then “Malone Jr., J.” on 1216. Usually the judge name at the very end of the case summary/concurrence block is the signature. I‘ll put Malone in the signature block. Wait, page 1216 has `Malone Jr., J.` at the start of the opinion body text (after the caption/citation block). The concurrence says “Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.” This is a standard 3rd Dept memorandum decision. Malone wrote it. I‘ll format the end as: ```html Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs. ``` The signature block isn‘t explicitly at the end in the same way a US District Court judge‘s name is, but Malone is the author. I‘ll leave it as paragraph text unless there‘s a clear signature. The prompt example shows the judge name in a signature block. Malone‘s name at the top is the author indicator. I‘ll keep it as-is. Wait, instructions say skip signature images, preserve typed name and title. Malone‘s name is typed. Actually, the screenshot shows `Malone Jr., J.` as the first line of the decision body. I‘ll treat it as a paragraph. Final check on `id` and `short` types: `Matter of Elijah Q.` full cite. `Matter of Julia R.` full cite. `Matter of Leo UU.` full cite. No `Id.` used in this text. Wait, `lv denied` counts as subsequent history. Example: `Full cite, aff‘d, subsequent history cite`. I will follow this pattern for `lv denied`. One law cite normalization: `Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]` -> `N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)` `CPLR 5520 [c]` -> `N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5520(c)` Final note on `MAIN opinion`: I‘m 100% sure Callan is a separate case starting on 1218 because it has its own caption `The People of the State of New York... [881 NYS2d 510]`. I will skip Callan. Let‘s verify the judge Malone‘s position. “Malone Jr., J.” In NY App Div, the author judge is often listed at the start. Ready.

Notes

*
Contrary to the Law Guardian‘s contentions, we find the joint notice of appeal to be sufficient with respect to the mother, notwithstanding any alleged defects in form (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 n [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). Contrary to the Law Guardian‘s contentions, we find the joint notice of appeal to be sufficient with respect to the mother, notwithstanding any alleged defects in form (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 n [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). Contrary to the Law Guardian‘s contentions, we find the joint notice of appeal to be sufficient with respect to the mother, notwithstanding any alleged defects in form (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 n [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]).