July 24, 2013
In the Matter of Jenna U. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; and Derrick U. (Anonymous), appellant. Docket No. N-18822-11
Anthony DeGuerre, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel; Max Ernst on the brief), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the child (no brief filed).
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, J.), dated August 24, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the subject child and placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the next permanency hearing.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's finding that the father neglected the subject child by using excessive corporal punishment was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]; see also Matter of Joseph O'D. [ Denise O'D. ], 102 A.D.3d 874, lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 863; Matter of Abigail G. [ Barrington G. ], 84 A.D.3d 1235; Matter of Maria Raquel L., 36 A.D.3d 425; Matter of Joshua B., 28 A.D.3d 759; Matter of Joseph O., 28 A.D.3d 562; Matter of Alysha M., 24 A.D.3d 255; Matter of Sheneika V., 20 A.D.3d 541; Matter of Jonathan W., 17 A.D.3d 374; Matter of Johannah QQ., 266 A.D.2d 769; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v Nicole S., 266 A.D.2d 556). The child's out-of-court statements that the father had been physically abusing her was sufficiently corroborated by testimony from the child's caseworker as well as by the child's medical records.
The Family Court's statement that the father admitted grabbing the child by the collar and holding her for about 45 seconds is not supported by the record. However, we note that the finding, which was apparently a misstatement by the Family Court, was not a basis for the Family Court's adjudication of neglect, and has not been considered by this Court as evidence of neglect.
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.