| Matter of Taylor P. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05556 [63 AD3d 1161] |
| June 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Taylor P., a Child Alleged to be Abused.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Tiamirra H. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Christina Brandt-Young, New York, N.Y. (Yisroel Schulman of counsel), for appellantAntonio P. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and JulieSteiner of counsel), for respondent. Brian Zimmerman, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Taylor P. Rick Stein, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Mia P.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Pearl, J.), dated February 6, 2008, as, upon so much of a fact-finding order of the same courtdated November 9, 2006, made after a hearing, as found that she abused the subject child, TaylorP., placed Taylor P. in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completionof the next permanency hearing, and the father separately appeals, as limited by his brief, fromso much of the same order of disposition as, upon so much of the fact-finding order as found thathe abused Taylor P., placed Taylor P. in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Servicesuntil the completion of the next permanency hearing. The appeals from the order of dispositionbring up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion inconforming the child neglect petition to the proof of child abuse adduced during the fact-findinghearing, and providing the parents with an opportunity to answer the amended allegations ofabuse (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of LeVonn G., 20 AD3d 530,531 [2005]; cf. Matter of Latifah C., 34 AD3d 798, 800 [2006]; Matter of StephanieR., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]). The record demonstrates that the parents were not prejudicedby the court's determination.[*2]
The Family Court's determination in a child protectiveproceeding, where issues of credibility are presented, is entitled to great deference on appeal, asthe court saw and heard the witnesses (see Matter of Steven Glenn R., 51 AD3d 802, 803[2008]; Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40 AD3d 770 [2007]). The Family Court'sdetermination that the petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parentsabused Taylor P., or permitted Taylor P. to be abused, is supported by the record (seeFamily Ct Act § 1012 [e] [i]).
The parents' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Balkin andAustin, JJ., concur.