| Matter of Syira W. (Latasha B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08218 [78 AD3d 1552] |
| November 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Syira W. and Others. Erie County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Latasha B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent. David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Children, the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo(Charles D. Halvorsen of counsel), for Syira W., Kquamere R. and Tonisha G.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered August17, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things,adjudged that respondent neglected the subject children.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, adjudicated her threechildren to be neglected. We note at the outset that, although the order of disposition in this childneglect proceeding has expired, the appeal by the mother from that order brings up for review theunderlying fact-finding order (see Matter of Jimmy D., 302 AD2d 892 [2003], lv denied100 NY2d 503 [2003]). We conclude that Family Court properly determined, following a hearing,that she neglected her children. The mother did not move to dismiss the petition on the ground that theevidence of neglect was insufficient to support the petition and thus failed to preserve for our review herpresent contention that the evidence is insufficient to establish that any of her children were presentduring the incident of domestic violence that formed the basis for the neglect petition (see generally Matter of Lorelei M. [AndrewM.], 67 AD3d 1383 [2009]; Matter of Yorimar K.-M., 309 AD2d 1148 [2003]). Inany event, the record contains sufficient evidence from which the court could have determined that atleast one of the mother's children was present during that incident. Contrary to the mother's contention,the domestic violence case worker did not recant her testimony that at least one child had been presentduring the altercation but, rather, she clarified the basis for that testimony. In any event, even if themother is correct, the case worker thereby would have created a credibility determination for the court,and the court's credibility determinations are of course entitled to great deference (see Matter of Kayla N., 41 AD3d 920,922 [2007]).[*2]
We have examined the mother's remaining contention andconclude that it is without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Pine and Gorski, JJ.