| Matter of Raima W. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01230 [59 AD3d 633] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Raima W., an Infant. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Franklin W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Anthony W.,an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Franklin W., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and EllenRavitch of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel),attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thefather appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.),dated September 21, 2007, which, after a hearing, determined that he neglected the child RaimaW. and derivatively neglected the child Anthony W., and (2) an order of disposition of the samecourt dated November 20, 2007, which, upon the fact-finding order, inter alia, released thechildren to the custody of the maternal grandmother.[*2]
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order isdismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the orderof disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"Where a determination depends upon the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, thefindings of the hearing court are entitled to great weight" (Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849 [2005]). Here, contrary to theappellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect as to the child Raima W. based onhis use of alcohol while driving a car in which the child was a passenger, and his use of corporalpunishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Heather D., 17 AD3d 1087 [2005]; Matter of Pedro C., 1 AD3d 267[2003]). Furthermore, the evidence also supports a finding of derivative neglect with respect toAnthony W. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Ramsay M., 17 AD3d 678 [2005]; Matter ofDutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.], 242 AD2d 533, 534 [1997]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.