| Matter of Anthony S. (Dawn N.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05827 [98 AD3d 519] |
| August 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Anthony S. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Dawn N., Appellant. |
—[*1]
Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mullholland of counsel),for respondent. Arza Rayches Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealsfrom an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann,J.), dated August 18, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child andplaced the child with her under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of SocialServices and subject to certain terms and conditions.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
"[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), first, that a child's physical, mental or emotionalcondition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that theactual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker toexercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision orguardianship" (Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Ina child-protective proceeding, "[u]nsworn out-of-court statements of the [subject child] may bereceived and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect" (Matter ofNicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi];Matter of Jada K.E. [Richard D.E.],96 AD3d 744 [2012]). Moreover, the Family Court's assessment of the credibility ofwitnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776[1975]; Matter of Yanni D. [HopeJ.], 95 AD3d 1313 [2012]).
Here, the evidence adduced at a hearing established that the child was exposed to domesticviolence. The mother testified that she and the father had a history of domestic violence andadmitted that the child had witnessed at least one act of domestic violence when the fatherchoked her and she bit the father. Further, a caseworker testified that the child had told her thathe had witnessed his parents hitting each other on numerous occasions and that such fightingfrightened him. Contrary to the mother's contention, the finding of neglect against her wassupported by a [*2]preponderance of the evidence, as she failed toexercise the minimum degree of care to prevent the imminent danger of the emotional and mentalimpairment of the subject child (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [a][vi]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 371-372; Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d 785 [2012]; Matter of Angelique L., 42 AD3d569, 571-572 [2007]; Matter ofChristopher B., 26 AD3d 431 [2006]; Matter of James MM. v June OO., 294AD2d 630, 632 [2002]; Matter of Deandre T., 253 AD2d 497 [1998]). Angiolillo, J.P.,Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.