| Matter of Sanaia L. (Corey W.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06091 [75 AD3d 554] |
| July 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sanaia L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Corey W., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nahla W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Corey W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel;Amol Sinha on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel),attorney for the children.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated May14, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 14, 2009, made after ahearing, finding that he had neglected the subject children, released the children to his custodyunder the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months.The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as fixed the period duringwhich the Administration for Children's Services was to supervise the father's custody of thesubject children is dismissed as academic, as that period of time has expired; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357, 369 [2004]; Matter of CarlenaB., 61 AD3d 752 [2009]; Matter of Carlos M., 293 AD2d 617 [2002];Matter of [*2]Deandre T., 253 AD2d 497 [1998]). Thehearsay admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing was allowable pursuant to specificstatutory provisions (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iv], [v]; Matter of Imani B., 27 AD3d 645,646 [2006]). That evidence, together with a negative inference drawn from the father's failure totestify, was sufficient to support the Family Court's finding of neglect (see Matter of Amanda Ann B., 38AD3d 537 [2007]). Further, the Family Court providently exercise its discretion in denyingthe application made by the father's attorney for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing,based upon the vague and unsubstantiated claim that the father could not appear due to anemergency (see Matter of Holmes vGlover, 68 AD3d 868 [2009]; Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651 [2004]; Matter of Kagno vKagno, 296 AD2d 410 [2002]). Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Santucci and Miller, JJ., concur.