In the Matter of Vincent C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Vincent C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Nicholas C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Vincent C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Docket Nos. N-3117-16, N-3118-16
Submitted - November 4, 2019
Francine Scotto, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Claude S.
Platton and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the children.
C. DILLON, J.P. RUTH C. BALKIN HECTOR D. LASALLE BETSY
DECISION & ORDER
related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,
the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and
disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Arnold Lim,
J.), dated November 29, 2018. The order of fact-finding and
disposition, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, found
that the father neglected the subject children.
that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed,
28, 2016, the petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant
to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the father
neglected the subject children, who were six and seven years
old at the time, by engaging in acts of domestic violence
against the mother. After a factfinding hearing, the Family
Court found that the allegations of domestic violence had
been established by a preponderance of the evidence. In an
order of fact-finding and disposition dated November 29,
2018, the court, inter alia, found that the father neglected
the children. The father appeals.
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 [citation omitted];
see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i];
1046[b][i]; Matter of Mohammed J. [Mohammed Z.], 121
A.D.3d 994, 994).
the evidence demonstrated that the father had a history of
committing acts of domestic violence against the mother. The
incidents were neither isolated nor did they all occur
outside the presence of the children. We agree with the
Family Court's determination that the petitioner
established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as a
result of the father's conduct, the children's
physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent
danger of impairment (see Matter of David M [Sonia
M.-C.], 119 A.D.3d 800, 800-801; Matter of Anthony
S. [Dawn N.], 98 A.D.3d 519, 520; Matter of Ndeye D.
[Benjamin D.], 85 A.D.3d 1026, 1027-1028). There is no
basis to disturb the court's determination that the
father's denials of the incidents lacked credibility
(see Matter of Aliyah T. [Jaivon T.], 174 A.D.3d
722, 724-725; Matter of Tayleese M.C. [Tunisha H.],
127 A.D.3d 1077, 1078). Contrary to the father's further
contention, the out-of-court statements made by one of the
children were sufficiently corroborated (see Family
Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]; Matter of Jubilee S. [James
S.], 149 A.D.3d 965, 967).
father's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, LASALLE and ...