| Matter of Nathanal C. (Dimas C.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08567 [78 AD3d 939] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nathanal C. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Dimas C. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lizette C.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Dimas C. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Robert J. Marinelli, New York, N.Y., for appellant Mandy C. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondent. Robert Hausner, Garden City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, MandyC. and Dimas C. separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.),dated October 8, 2009, which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028, deniedtheir separate motions for the return of the subject children to their custody during the pendencyof the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretionin denying their separate motions pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 to return the subjectchildren to their custody during the pendency of the proceeding. There was sufficient evidencepresented at the hearing that the children's emotional, mental, and physical health would be atimminent risk if they were returned to the appellants' care (see Family Ct Act §1028). Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Family Court's determination notto return the children to the appellants' custody until additional facts are adduced at a fullfact-finding hearing (see Matter ofXavier J., 47 AD3d 815 [2008]; Matter of Janih M., 8 AD3d 384 [2004]; see also Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3NY3d 357 [2004]).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.