| Matter of Vincent L. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10050 [46 AD3d 395] |
| December 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Vincent L. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbused and/or Neglected. Vincent L., Sr., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Karen M. Griffin of counsel),for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or aboutFebruary 8, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father derivativelyabused and neglected the subject children, placed the children in the custody of petitioner NewYork City Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months and deniedrespondent's request for visitation, unanimously affirmed insofar as it brings up for review thefact-finding determination, and the appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs.
The court's finding of derivative abuse and neglect was supported by a preponderance of theevidence. Respondent's admitted sexual abuse of four other children under the age of 14 withwhom he had a paternal and close relationship between 1996 and 1999 demonstrated such animpaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to the subject children(see Matter of Vincent M., 193 AD2d 398, 404 [1993]). Further, respondent, carrying aknife, threatened to kill himself, the children's mother and the three subject children, and took theyoungest child from the mother and transported him to another borough. Additionally,respondent assaulted the mother in open court.
Respondent's challenge to the court's denial of his request for visitation and photographs isacademic, as the order of disposition has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Fred Darryl B., 41 AD3d276, 277 [2007]). In any event, the denial was warranted, given, inter alia, the children'sages, the distance that they would have to travel to visit respondent in prison, respondent's failureto engage in rehabilitative services, his repeated threats of violence, and his erratic and disruptivebehavior throughout the proceedings, which evinced an impaired level of judgment (see Gregory C. v Nyree S., 16 AD3d142, 143 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]). Concur—Lippman, P.J.,Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.