Matter of Deon S.-G. (Romel S.-G.)
2012 NY Slip Op 04180 [95 AD3d 1340]
May 30, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 27, 2012


In the Matter of Deon S.-G. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Romel S.-G., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[*1]Nicholas S. Dubrowsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein andGraham Morrison of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht of counsel),attorney for the child.

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from(1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated March 10,2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that the father had neglected the subjectchild, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated March 23, 2011, which, upon thefact-finding order, inter alia, directed the father to attend anger management and parentingclasses and to complete a batterer's program.

Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter ofPhilip M., 82 NY2d 238 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]; Matter of Besthani M., 13 AD3d452 [2004]). Here, contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect,based upon his use of excessive corporal punishment, is supported by a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Chanyae S. [Rena W.], 82AD3d 1247 [2011]; Matter of IsaiahS., 63 AD3d 948 [2009]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562[2006]).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andAustin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.