Opinion
16494 Dkt. No. NN-10473/19 Case No. 2021-03565
10-20-2022
In the MATTER OF ZORREN T., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Doris M., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), and Locke Lord LLP, New York (Ira G. Greenberg of counsel), attorneys for the child.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), and Locke Lord LLP, New York (Ira G. Greenberg of counsel), attorneys for the child.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Gesmer, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2021, which, inter alia, determined that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i] ). The evidence showed that the mother abused cocaine in close proximity, approximately three feet, to the then two-year-old child, who was walking and able to get in and out of his crib unassisted, while she was in the bathroom of the one-room apartment she shared with the child and his father. Two weeks later, the father again saw the mother with a vial of cocaine in the bathroom, while the child was in the home and could have entered the bathroom and come into contact with, ingested, or inhaled the narcotic, thereby placing the child at imminent risk of harm (see e.g. Matter of Eliani M.-R. [Sonia M.], 172 A.D.3d 636, 102 N.Y.S.3d 181 [1st Dept. 2019] ; see also e.g. Matter of Jaylin E. [Jessica G.], 81 A.D.3d 451, 451, 916 N.Y.S.2d 81 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Matter of Michael R., 309 A.D.2d 590, 590–591, 765 N.Y.S.2d 358 [1st Dept. 2003] ). The court properly drew a negative inference from the mother's failure to testify at the hearing (see Matter of Adonis H. [Enerfry H.], 198 A.D.3d 478, 479, 156 N.Y.S.3d 153 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Rachel S.D. [Luis N.], 113 A.D.3d 450, 979 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.