| Matter of Jadalynn HH. (Roy HH.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02364 [93 AD3d 1112] |
| March 29, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jadalynn HH., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. St.Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Roy HH.,Appellant. |
—[*1] David D. Willer, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, forrespondent. Maureen C. McGaw, Canton, attorney for the child.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.),entered May 13, 2011, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, grantedpetitioner's motion for summary judgment adjudicating respondent's child to be neglected.
Respondent is the father of a child born in 2010. Petitioner commenced this neglectproceeding about three months after the child's birth alleging that respondent had previously beenfound, in orders issued between 2006 and 2008, to have neglected four of his prior children. Itfurther asserted that, at a time when the mother of the child involved in this proceeding wasapproximately seven months pregnant, respondent tackled her, placed her in a headlock andpunched her in the stomach, inflicting injuries that required medical treatment. In addition,shortly after the child was born, and in violation of a protective order, respondent allegedlyrestrained the mother in a chair, screamed at her and struck her in the face as he held the child.Both of these incidents resulted in multiple criminal charges being filed against respondent, who[*2]eventually pleaded guilty to charges regarding each incidentand was incarcerated. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on its neglect petition, and theattorney for the child joined in urging Family Court to grant the motion. In opposition,respondent submitted only a cursory affirmation from his attorney contending that petitioner hadfailed to produce adequate proof in admissible form supporting its motion. Family Court grantedthe motion and respondent appeals.
We affirm. Although summary judgment is a drastic remedy, it nonetheless remains "anappropriate procedural device to be used in Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings where no triableissues of fact exist" (Matter of TradaleCC., 52 AD3d 900, 901 [2008]; see Matter of Doe, 47 AD3d 283, 285 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 709 [2008]; Matter of Kali-AnnE., 27 AD3d 796, 798 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]). Petitionersubmitted in support of its motion, among other things, an affidavit from its caseworker, certifiedcopies of the accusatory instruments (including several witnesses' supporting depositionspursuant to CPL 100.20) for the criminal charges arising from the same conduct alleged in thepetition, certificates of conviction regarding those crimes and orders of protection. Family Courtwas asked to take judicial notice of the four prior findings of neglect, resulting from proceedingsover which it presided. The attorney for the child, who represented two of respondent's olderchildren who had previously been found neglected, set forth pertinent facts in an affidavit.Petitioner's proof established a continuous pattern of acute domestic violence inflicted byrespondent not only on adults but also on his children and often done in disregard of protectiveorders. He had been adjudicated to have neglected four older children and he pleaded guilty tocrimes arising out of his physical violence against the child's mother. We find the proof in therecord sufficient to establish neglect. Respondent offered no proof in opposition to the motionand his procedural argument is unavailing. The motion was properly granted.
Mercure, A.P.J., Spain, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.