| Matter of Ajay Sumert D. (Vijay Anand D.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06264 [87 AD3d 637] |
| August 16, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ajay Sumert D. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Vijay Anand D., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and FayNg of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Elana Roffman 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 so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, QueensCounty (Richroath, J.), dated April 9, 2010, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedFebruary 2, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subject child, placed thechild in the custody of the mother. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for reviewthe fact-finding order dated February 2, 2010.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The subject child's mother testified at the fact-finding hearing that in May 2006, the father hitthe mother in the face with such force that she could not move her jaw up and down or chew, andthat the child, who was then 2½ years old, was present during this incident and begancrying. The mother further testified that in June 2006, while she was holding the child, the fatherpunched the mother in the stomach, cursed at her, and threatened to kill her if she did not leavethe apartment. Under the circumstances, the evidence supports the Family Court's determinationthat the father neglected the subject child by engaging in acts of domestic violence against themother in the child's presence that impaired or created an imminent danger of impairing thechild's physical, emotional, or mental condition (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i][B]; Matter of Hannah A. [JibrineA.], 84 AD3d 951, 952 [2011]; Matter of Jordan E., 57 AD3d 539, 540 [2008]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d1063, 1064 [2007]; cf. Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Florio and Lott, JJ.,concur.