| Matter of Andrew B. (Deborah B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04372 [73 AD3d 1036] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Andrew B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Deborah B., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Jasmine B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Deborah B., Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet and Frank J. Albertiof counsel), for respondent. Robert D. Gallo, Sayville, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Quinn, J.), dated May 22, 2009,and (2), as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of fact-finding and disposition ofthe same court, also dated May 22, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated April 8,2009, made after a hearing, inter alia, found that she neglected her daughter Jasmine B. andderivatively neglected her son Andrew B.
Ordered that the appeal from the first order dated May 22, 2009, is dismissed, as abandoned,without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
We decline to review the mother's contention that the findings of neglect due to her mentalcondition were precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon a previous findingby the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, after a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §9.39, that her continued hospitalization was not required, as the mother failed to perfect a priorappeal from the Family Court's order denying her motion to dismiss the petitions upon thosegrounds (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [1976]).[*2]
The Family Court's assessment of the credibility ofwitnesses is entitled to considerable deference unless clearly unsupported by the record (seeMatter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Aminat O., 20 AD3d 480 [2005]). The Family Court'sfinding that the mother's mental condition caused impairment, or an imminent danger ofimpairment, to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of her daughter, Jasmine, wassupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i];§ 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of IfeiyeO., 53 AD3d 501 [2008]; Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490 [1998]; Matterof Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Diane B., 231 AD2d 523 [1996]; Matter ofChild Welfare Admin. v Jennifer A., 218 AD2d 694 [1995]; Matter of Baby Boy E.,187 AD2d 512 [1992]). Jasmine's testimony was not incredible. Further, the evidence supportedthe derivative finding of neglect as to Andrew (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i];Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d538 [2007]). Fisher, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.