—[*1] Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.

Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Lisa May of counsel), and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Sarah E. Walcavich of counsel), Law Guardian.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about October 9, 2008, which placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner, with submission to random drug screening, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to preserve his argument that he was not a person legally responsible for the subject children of his two daughters, and we decline to consider it (see e.g. Matter of Saraphina Ameila S., 50 AD3d 378, 379 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]).

The court properly denied respondent's motions to dismiss these neglect petitions under Family Court Act § 1051 (c). One child was paroled to her mother, and the other was placed with respondent's mother (the child's great-grandmother). Respondent repeatedly stated that he wished to have contact with his grandchildren, and he did in fact have unsupervised contact with them. "The agreed-upon placement of the child with a relative did not, under the circumstances, obviate the necessity for the court to . . . impose conditions upon respondent" (Matter of Diana Y., 246 AD2d 340 [1998]). Moreover, given the seriousness of respondent's involvement with controlled substances, supervision by the agency is necessary for the purpose of monitoring his conduct (Matter of A.G., 253 AD2d 318, 328 [1999]). This case is distinguishable from Matter [*2]of Kirk V. (60 AD3d 427 [2009]), where the person alleged to be a danger to the child had not lived or visited with the family for more than four years prior to court's decision. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.