| Matter of Kaila A. (Reginald A.—Lovely A.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03380 [95 AD3d 421] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Kaila A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Reginald A., Appellant; Lovely A., Respondent; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on orabout November 5, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, after a hearing, found thatrespondent father had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appealfrom order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about January 26, 2011, whichplaced the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion ofthe next permanency hearing, to the extent not abandoned, unanimously dismissed, without costs,as moot.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's finding that respondent had neglectedthe child by committing acts of domestic violence against the child's mother in the child'spresence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Niyah E. [Edwin E.], 71AD3d 532, 533 [2010]). Respondent failed to preserve his hearsay objections, and wedecline to review them (see Matter ofIsaiah R., 35 AD3d 249, 249 [2006]). In any event, the child's out-of-court statements tothe caseworker that she had seen respondent "choking, kicking and slapping" her mother on oneoccasion and hitting her on another were admissible since they were corroborated by otherevidence—namely, the caseworker's testimony and the records admitted without objection(Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Aliyah B. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943, 943 [2011]). Underthe circumstances, Family Court properly found that the child's physical, mental or emotionalcondition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired (see Family Ct Act §1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Niyah, 71 AD3d at 533).
A preponderance of the evidence also supports the court's finding of educational neglect, asthe record shows that the child had missed 59 days of school in a two-year period (see Matterof Aliyah, 87 AD3d at 943). The court rejected respondent's testimony that he was unawareof the child's excessive absences, and there is no basis for disturbing the court's credibilitydeterminations (id. at 943-944).
On appeal, respondent does not raise any arguments with respect to the dispositional order. Inany event, to the extent the appeal from that order is not abandoned, it is moot since theplacement terms of the order have expired (see Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 AD3d 484 [2012]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.