Opinion
12985 Dkt. No. NN-14196/18 Case No. 2019-4154
01-28-2021
In the MATTER OF ATHENA M., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Manuel M.T., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Susan Barrie, New York, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julia Bedell of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Susan Barrie, New York, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julia Bedell of counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2019, to the extent it determined, after a fact-finding hearing, that respondent father neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and appeal from the dispositional portion thereof, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which shows that the child's mental and emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of her exposure to an incident of domestic violence committed by respondent against the child's mother ( Family Court Act §§ 1012[f][i][B] ; 1046[b][i]; see Matter of Andru G. [Jasmine C.], 156 A.D.3d 456, 64 N.Y.S.3d 886 [1st Dept. 2017] ). The fact that the domestic violence occurred in close proximity to the child, who was awake at the time, permits an inference of impairment or imminent danger of impairment, even in the absence of evidence that the child was aware of it or emotionally affected by it ( Andru G., 156 A.D.3d at 457, 64 N.Y.S.3d 886 ; Matter of O'Ryan Elizah H. [Kairo E.], 171 A.D.3d 429, 95 N.Y.S.3d 520 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Moreover, respondent's single act of domestic violence, in which he hit the mother in the face twice, in the child's presence, is sufficient to find neglect (see Matter of Mateo M.S.J. [Daniel M.A.], 184 A.D.3d 415, 124 N.Y.S.3d 688 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
The appeal from the dispositional portion of the order is dismissed as moot, as that portion of the order has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Angie G. [Jose D.G.], 111 A.D.3d 404, 405, 974 N.Y.S.2d 369 [1st Dept. 2013] ).