| Matter of Jenna U. (Derrick U.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05467 [108 AD3d 725] |
| July 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jenna U. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Derrick U., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Sharyn Rootenberg ofcounsel; Max Ernst on the brief), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Waksberg of counsel),attorney for the child (no brief filed).
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Gruebel, J.), dated August 24, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that heneglected the subject child and placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner ofSocial Services of the City of New York until the next permanency hearing.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court's finding that the father neglected the subject child by usingexcessive corporal punishment was supported by a preponderance of the credibleevidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see also Matter of Joseph O'D.[Denise O'D.], 102 AD3d 874 [2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013];Matter of Abigail G.[Barrington G.], 84 AD3d 1235 [2011]; Matter of Maria Raquel L., 36 AD3d 425 [2007]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d759 [2006]; Matter ofJoseph O., 28 AD3d 562 [2006]; Matter of Alysha M., 24 AD3d 255 [2005]; Matter of Sheneika V., 20AD3d 541 [2005]; Matterof Jonathan W., 17 AD3d 374 [2005]; Matter of Johannah QQ., 266AD2d 769 [1999]; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v Nicole S.,266 AD2d 556 [1999]). The child's out-of-court statements that the father had beenphysically abusing her was sufficiently corroborated by testimony from the child'scaseworker as well as by the child's medical records.
The Family Court's statement that the father admitted grabbing the child by the collarand holding her for about 45 seconds is not supported by the record. However, we notethat the finding, which was apparently a misstatement by the Family Court, was not abasis for the Family Court's adjudication of neglect, and has not been considered by thisCourt as evidence of neglect.[*2]
The father's remaining contentions are withoutmerit. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.