| Matter of Alanna S. (Regina A.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01260 [92 AD3d 787] |
| February 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Alanna S. Administration for Children's Services,Appellant; Regina A. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Alissa A.Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Regina A. et al., Respondents. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Ashanti A. Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Regina A.et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Ashley A. Administration for Children'sServices, Appellant; Regina A. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Justin N.Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Regina A. et al., Respondents. (ProceedingNo. 5.) In the Matter of Patrick M. Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Regina A.et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 6.) |
—[*1] Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent Regina A. Mitchell P. Newman, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent Christopher S. Marc A. Berk, Staten Island, N.Y., attorney for the children.
[*2]In six related child protective proceedings pursuant toFamily Court Act article 10, the Administration for Children's Services appeals from an order offact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), datedJune 1, 2011, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petitions.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is reversed, on the facts, without costsor disbursements, the petitions are reinstated, it is found that the respondents neglected thesubject children, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for adispositional hearing followed by a disposition.
The petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent Christopher S.neglected the child Alissa A. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her, specifically byhitting her with a broom, which injured and scarred her leg, and by pinching Alissa A. on herback hard enough to leave a raised mark (see Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]; Matter of Aaliyah Q., 55 AD3d969, 970 [2008]). The petitioner also showed by a preponderance of the evidence that therespondent mother, Regina A., neglected all of the subject children because she knew or shouldhave known that Christopher S., who was frequently in the children's presence as their babysitter,verbally abused her in the presence of the children and inflicted excessive corporal punishmenton Alissa A., and because she failed to prevent further contact between Christopher S. and AlissaA. once she became or should have become aware that Christopher S. had inflicted excessivecorporal punishment on Alissa A. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Aliciya R., 56 AD3d 784[2008]; Matter of Cantina B., 26AD3d 327, 328 [2006]; Matter of Kanika M., 270 AD2d 490 [2000]; Matter ofMaxwell B., 269 AD2d 444, 445 [2000]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. ofCity of N.Y. v Edyth W., 210 AD2d 328, 329 [1994]). Moreover, in light of the mother'sfailure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing Alissa A. with proper supervision orguardianship, the petitioner also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the motherderivatively neglected all of the subject children, who were also frequently in the presence ofChristopher S. (see Matter of AliciyaR., 56 AD3d 784 [2008]; Matter of Jose I., 13 AD3d 446, 447 [2004]; Matter of AmandaRR., 293 AD2d 779, 781 [2002]).
Accordingly, we reverse the order of fact-finding and disposition, reinstate the petition, andremit the matter to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a dispositional hearing, and a newdisposition thereafter. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.