| Matter of Nyece M. (Rommel M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02885 [83 AD3d 718] |
| April 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nyece M. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Rommel M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and PamelaSeider Dolgow of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel),Attorney for the Child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals,as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of disposition of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Grosvenor, J.), dated April 16, 2010, which, after separate fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, found that he neglected the child Nyece M. and, inter alia, directed the father'scontinued exclusion from the family home until he completes an anger management program.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court's finding that the father neglected the subject child by using excessivecorporal punishment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family CtAct § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see alsoMatter of Maria Raquel L., 36 AD3d 425 [2007]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562[2006]; Matter of Alysha M., 24AD3d 255 [2005]; Matter ofSheneika V., 20 AD3d 541 [2005]; Matter of Jonathan W., 17 AD3d 374 [2005]; Matter ofJohannah QQ., 266 AD2d 769 [1999]; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. vNicole S., 266 AD2d 556 [1999]).
The Family Court's order of disposition, which, inter alia, directed the father's continuedexclusion from the home until after he completes an anger management program, was in thechild's best interest (see Family Ct Act § 1052 [b] [ii]; § 1056 [1] [a], [h];see also Matter of Kenneth L., 209 AD2d 352 [1994]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin andCohen, JJ., concur.