IN THE MATTER OF YESHUA G.——————————————ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;ANTHONY G., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.JAMES E. BROWN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.DOMINIC PAUL CANDINO, WEST SENECA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M.LoVallo, J.), entered December 7, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things,terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject child on thegrounds of mental illness.It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from isunanimously affirmed without costs.Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminaterespondent father’s parental rights with respect to the subject childon the ground of mental illness (see generallySocial Services Law§ 384-b [4] [c]). Family Court granted petitioner’s motion forsummary judgment on the petition. We now affirm.Contrary to the father’s contention, the court properly grantedpetitioner’s motion based on collateral estoppel (seeMatter ofSuffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182-183[1994];Matter of Desiree C., 7 AD3d 522, 524 [2d Dept 2004]). Therelevant issue in this proceeding is whether the father is “presentlyand for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness . .. , to provide proper and adequate care for a child” (Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [4] [c]), and the court resolved that exact issue againsthim in a prior termination proceeding concerning his other children(Matter of Neveah G. [Anthony G.], 156 AD3d 1342, 1342 [4th Dept2017],lv denied— NY3d —, 2018 NY Slip Op 71835 [2018];see Matter ofNeveah G. [Jahkeya A.], 156 AD3d 1340, 1341 [4th Dept 2017],lv denied— NY3d —, 2018 NY Slip Op 71836 [2018]). The father does not disputethat he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate thatissue in the prior proceeding (see James M., 83 NY2d at 182-183;Matter of Sarah L., 207 AD2d 1016, 1017 [4th Dept 1994]). Thus,-2- 285CAF 16-02327“[a]ll the requirements were satisfied for applying collateralestoppel to sustain the [instant termination] petition” (Sarah L., 207AD2d at 1017;seeMatter of Jasmine R., 8 Misc 3d 904, 908-912 [FamCt, Queens County 2005]). We reject the father’s contention thatpetitioner was obligated to submit the expert report upon which thecourt’s prior determination was based inasmuch as that determinationwas itself sufficient, standing alone, to establish petitioner’sinitial burden on summary judgment.In opposition to petitioner’s motion, the father failed to raisea triable issue of fact concerning the applicability of collateralestoppel. We therefore conclude that the court properly grantedpetitioner’s motion and terminated the father’s parental rights withrespect to the subject child (see Matter of Majerae T. [Crystal T.],74 AD3d 1784, 1784-1786 [4th Dept 2010];cf. Matter of Terrence G.[Terrence M.M.---Yvonne C.G.], 98 AD3d 1294, 1295-1296 [4th Dept 2012]).Entered: June 8, 2018 Mark W. BennettClerk of the Court
