Matter of Robert B.-H. (Robert H.)
2011 NY Slip Op 02661 [82 AD3d 1221]
March 29, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


In the Matter of Robert B.-H. Mercyfirst, Appellant, et al., Petitioner; Robert H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nyema B.-H. Mercyfirst, Appellant, et al., Petitioner; Robert H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Latisha B.-H. Mercyfirst, Appellant, et al., Petitioner; Robert H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Shameika B.-H. Mercyfirst, Appellant, et al., Petitioner; Robert H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.)

—[*1] Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras and Richard Jay Warren of counsel), for appellant.

Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Mercyfirst appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.), dated July 27, 2010, which vacated, nunc pro tunc, a temporary order of protection of the same court dated May 19, 2010, issued against the father, and denied, as academic, its motion to hold the father in contempt for his willful violation of the temporary order of protection.

Ordered that amended order dated July 27, 2010, is affirmed, with costs.

"Family Court Act § 1056 does not authorize the issuance of an order of protection on behalf of [a foster care agency's] employees" (Matter of Robert B.-H. [Robert H.], 81 AD3d 940, 941 [2d Dept 2011]). "Mercyfirst's caseworkers do not fit within [*2]any of the classes of persons in whose favor an order of protection may be issued" (id.; see Family Ct Act § 1056). Accordingly, the Family Court properly vacated the temporary order of protection (see Matter of Robert B.-H. [Robert H.], 81 AD3d 940, 941 [2011]).

Further, since the Family Court had no power to issue the temporary order of protection initially, it was void ab initio for all purposes, including the power to hold the father in contempt (see Matter of Fish v Horn, 14 NY2d 905, 906 [1964]; Matter of Jillana C., 309 AD2d 1170, 1171 [2003]; see also Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533, 534-535 [1996]).

Mercyfirst's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.