| Matter of Steven Glenn R. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04525 [51 AD3d 802] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Steven Glenn R., an Infant. Nassau CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Tracy B., Respondent; Eugene D.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Karen Hutson of counsel), forrespondent. Eileen T. Stapleton, Levittown, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Eugene D., theboyfriend of the mother of the subject child, appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much ofa fact-finding order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated June 7, 2006, as,after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child by placing him in imminent danger ofharm, and (2) from an order of protection of the same court dated June 21, 2006, which, uponconsent, directed him to stay away from the subject child until June 21, 2007.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection dated June 21, 2006, is dismissed,without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon consent (see Matter of Kristina R., 21 AD3d560, 562 [2005]); and it is further,
Ordered that the fact-finding order dated June 7, 2006, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
Several of the transcripts of the testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing were notsubmitted to this Court by the appellant. Nevertheless, the transcripts that were submitted,coupled [*2]with the detailed review of the testimony of thewitnesses in the decision and order of the Family Court, permit meaningful appellate review ofthe portion of the fact-finding order appealed from in this case (see Eun Lee v Solimano, 34 AD3d299 [2006]; Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]).
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the petitioner established, by a preponderance of theevidence, that the child, Steven, was neglected as a result of the appellant's acts and hiscomplicity in the acts of the mother, through a course of conduct which occurred during the weekof August 4, 2003 (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M.,82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; Matterof Astrid C., 43 AD3d 819, 821 [2007]; Matter of Besthani M., 13 AD3d 452, 453 [2004]). The FamilyCourt's determination in a neglect proceeding where issues of credibility are presented is entitledto great deference on appeal, as the court saw and heard the witnesses (see Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d541, 542 [2005]). In this case, the Family Court's determination that the petitionerestablished that the appellant had neglected Steven has ample support in the record. Moreover,Steven's out-of-court statements were corroborated by his sworn in camera testimony (seeMatter of Besthani M., 13 AD3d at 453; Matter of Hadja B., 302 AD2d 226 [2003];see also Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]).
The Family Court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for recusal. In the absence ofan express violation of Judiciary Law § 14, the decision on a recusal motion based uponalleged bias and prejudice, as in this case, is generally a matter for the court's personal conscience(see Judiciary Law § 14; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987];EECP Ctrs. of Am. v Vasomedical, Inc., 277 AD2d 349, 350 [2000]). Here, the courtprovidently exercised its discretion.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Miller, Dillon andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.