Opinion
2014-10-22
In the Matter of MOHAMMED J. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Mohammed Z. (Anonymous), appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Emma Grunberg of counsel), for respondent.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Emma Grunberg of counsel), for respondent.
John A. Diaz, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated May 22, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court (Tally, J.), dated February 28, 2012, finding that he neglected the subject child, inter alia, released the child to the custody of the mother. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [citation omitted]; seeFamily Ct. Act § 1012[f][i]; Matter of Anthony S. [Dawn N.], 98 A.D.3d 519, 520, 949 N.Y.S.2d 194). The Family Court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference ( see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 A.D.3d 1313, 1313, 944 N.Y.S.2d 923).
Here, contrary to the father's contention, a preponderance of the credible evidence established that he neglected the subject child by, in the child's presence, hitting the mother on the head with an object, causing her to bleed and require nine stitches. The father's act of domestic violence against the mother in the child's presence impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition ( see Matter of Celeste O. [Calvin A.], 119 A.D.3d 586, 587, 987 N.Y.S.2d 903; Matter of Amodea D. [Jason D.], 112 A.D.3d 1367, 1367–1368, 978 N.Y.S.2d 513 Matter of Anthony S. [Dawn N.], 98 A.D.3d at 520, 949 N.Y.S.2d 194). The child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by, among other things, the caseworker's testimony and the medical records ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi]; Matter of Kaleb B. [Harold S.], 119 A.D.3d 780, 781, 989 N.Y.S.2d 345; Matter of Shakil G. [Abdul G.], 110 A.D.3d 572, 572, 974 N.Y.S.2d 354; Matter of Kaila A. [Reginald A.-Lovely A.], 95 A.D.3d 421, 421, 942 N.Y.S.2d 789).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father neglected the subject child.