| Matter of Nia J. (Janet Jordan P.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04705 [107 AD3d 566] |
| June 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Nia J. and Others, Children Alleged to beNeglected. Janet Jordan P., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel),for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel),attorney for the children.
Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.),entered on or about June 29, 2012, which, following a hearing, determined thatrespondent mother had neglected the children Leeana P. and Shamiah P., andderivatively neglected the child Nia J., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that on January 12,2012, respondent neglected Leeana and Shamiah by engaging in an altercation with aman in front of the children while she held two knives. Contrary to respondent'scontentions Shamiah's out-of-court statement that respondent was holding two kniveswhile she argued with a man was sufficiently corroborated by the security guard'stestimony that he saw respondent holding a knife when he arrived at respondent'sapartment (see Matter of AliyahB. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943, 943 [1st Dept 2011]). The security guard'sobservations that the children were sitting on the bed and "appeared to be crying," andthat one child "was shaking from the situation," is sufficient to demonstrate by apreponderance of the evidence that their emotional well-being had been impaired by thealtercation they had just witnessed (see Matter of Jessica R., 230 AD2d 108,111-112 [1st Dept 1997]).
In addition, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that on January 19, 2012,respondent neglected Leeana and Shamiah by failing to promptly pick them up from acaseworker, who had agreed to watch them while respondent traveled back from theagency. Indeed, the record demonstrates that respondent failed to contact the caseworkerfor approximately three hours to determine whether the caseworker could continue caringfor them or that their needs were being met, which caused the caseworker to have tocontact ACS so that an emergency removal of the children from the shelter could beperformed to ensure their safety (see Matter of Joyce A-M. [Yvette A.], 68 AD3d 417, 418[1st Dept 2009]).
Lastly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court's determinationthat respondent had derivatively neglected Nia, even though the child did not live withrespondent when the neglect occurred, because respondent suffers from such an impairedlevel of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in hercustody (see Matter of Kylani R.[Kyreem B.], 93 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur—Mazzarelli,J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.