Matter of Eugene S. (Priscilla E.)
2014 NY Slip Op 00671 [114 AD3d 691]
February 5, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 26, 2014


In the Matter of Eugene S., Jr. Westchester CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Priscilla E., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Dakota S. Westchester County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Priscilla E., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.)

[*1]Carl D. Birman, Mamaroneck, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Justin R. Adin of counsel),for petitioner-respondent.

Ronna L. DeLoe, New Rochelle, N.Y., attorney for the children.

In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Supreme Court,Westchester County (IDV Part) (Capeci, J.), entered August 21, 2012, which, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she neglected the subjectchildren.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.

"To establish neglect pursuant to section 1012 (f) (i) (B) of the Family Court Act, thepetitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the child's physical,mental or emotional condition has been impaired, or is in imminent danger of becomingimpaired, and (2) the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to the failure of theparent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child withproper supervision or guardianship" (Matter of Kiara C. [David C.], 85 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026[2011]; see Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

Here, contrary to the mother's contention, a preponderance of the evidenceestablished that she neglected the subject children by, inter alia, engaging in certain actsof domestic [*2]violence in the children's presence thatimpaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, mental, oremotional condition (see Matterof Amelia V.M.B. [Davidson B.], 107 AD3d 980 [2013]; Matter of Michael G.C. [MichaelC.], 103 AD3d 890 [2013]; Matter of Ariella S. [Krystal C.], 89 AD3d 1092 [2011]; Matter of Ndeye D. [BenjaminD.], 85 AD3d 1026 [2011]; Matter of Elijah J. [Phillip J.], 77 AD3d 835 [2010]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3NY3d 357 [2004]; Matterof Chaim R. [Keturah Ponce R.], 94 AD3d 1127 [2012]).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Hall andRoman, 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.