| Matter of Janiyah T. (Lateek C.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02402 [82 AD3d 1108] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Janiyah T. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Lateek C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofKamiyah C. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Lateek C., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng of counsel; Alyse P.Fiori on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), Attorney forthe Child.
In two related child abuse and neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,Lateek C. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the FamilyCourt, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated January 7, 2010, as, after a hearing, found that heneglected Janiyah T. and derivatively neglected Kamiyah C.
Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court's determination that Lateek C. (hereinafter the appellant) neglected thechild Janiyah T. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A "neglected child" isdefined by the Family Court Act as one "whose physical, mental or emotional condition has beenimpaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent. . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the childwith proper supervision or guardianship" (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The petitionerestablished, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]),that the appellant's conduct impaired the mental or emotional well-being of Janiyah T., or placedthat child in imminent danger of such impairment (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f];Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]; Matter of Kevin M.H. [Kenneth H.],76 AD3d 1015 [2010]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the appellantneglected Janiyah T.[*2]
Further, the appellant's neglect of Janiyah T. evinced aflawed understanding of his duties as a parent and demonstrated an impaired level of parentaljudgment sufficient to support the Family Court's finding of derivative neglect of the childKamiyah C. (see Matter of Lauryn H. [William A.], 73 AD3d 1175 [2010]; Matter ofGrant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]).
In light of our determination, the appellant's remaining contentions need not be addressed.Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.