| Matter of Mohammad K.B. (Mohammed K-M.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06804 [99 AD3d 796] |
| October 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mohammad K.B., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Mohammad K-M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Mohammad K.M., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; MohammadK-M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath andVictoria Scalzo of counsel; Farah Zubair on the brief), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern of counsel), attorneyfor the children.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition ofthe Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 23, 2010, as found that heneglected the subject children, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated October 8,2010, as denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate the determination in the orderdated March 23, 2010, finding that he neglected the subject children.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated March 23, 2010, and the orderdated October 8, 2010, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence supports the Family Court's determination that the father neglected the subjectchildren by engaging in acts of domestic violence against the children's mother in their presencethat impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mentalconditions (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Lawrence G. [LawrenceP.G.—Stefanie V.], 97 AD3d 748 [2012]; Matter of Kiara C. [David C.], 85AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]). Moreover, additional evidence established a pattern of domesticviolence and intimidation perpetrated by the father.[*2]
Further, the Family Court properly denied the branch ofthe father's motion which was to vacate the determination in the order dated March 23, 2010,finding that he neglected the subject children (see CPLR 5015 [a]).
The father's remaining contentions either are without merit or refer to matter dehors therecord. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.