| Matter of Nurridin B. (Louis J.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02431 [116 AD3d 770] |
| April 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nurridin B. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Louis J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Elijah J.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Louis J., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Shervon M. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Louis J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent. Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Louis J.appeals from (1) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (White, J.),dated January 24, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon afinding that he neglected the child Shervon M., placed that child in the custody of theNew York City Department of Social Services until completion of the next permanencyhearing, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court, also dated January 24, 2013,which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon a finding that hederivatively neglected the children Nurridin B. and Elijah J., inter alia, directed that theNew York City Department of Social Services supervise his parenting of those children.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After a fact-finding hearing under Family Court Act article 10, any determinationthat a child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112,117 [1987]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667, 668 [2003]). Neglect may beestablished by even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Padmine M. [SandraM.], 84 AD3d 806, 807 [2011]; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d 1060 [2009]). The FamilyCourt's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference(see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.],81 AD3d 647 [2011]).
Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect ofthe child Shervon M., based on excessive corporal punishment, was supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of James S. [KathleenS.], 88 AD3d 1006 [2011]; Matter of Padmine M. [Sandra M.], 84 AD3d 806 [2011];Matter of Sadiq H. [KarlH.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948 [2009]; Matter of Derek J., 56 AD3d558 [2008]). The Family Court's finding that the appellant engaged in excessivecorporal punishment when he struck the child Shervon M. several times with a belt,causing raised red marks on her arm and legs, is supported by the evidence presented atthe fact-finding hearing. Shervon's out-of-court statements that the appellant struck herwith a belt were sufficiently corroborated by the caseworker's observations of Shervon'sinjuries and the appellant's admission to the caseworker that he had struck Shervon witha belt in the past (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of IsaiahS., 63 AD3d at 949; Matterof Nicholas L., 50 AD3d 1141 [2008]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759, 761 [2006]). TheFamily Court's determination that the appellant lacked credibility when he testified thathe never hit Shervon with a belt is entitled to deference (see Matter of Irene O.,38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter ofSadiq H. [Karl H.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]) and, moreover, is fully supported bythe record.
The evidence also supported the derivative finding of neglect as to the childrenNurridin B. and Elijah J. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; see also Matter of James S.[Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006 [2011]; Matter of Devontay M., 56 AD3d 561 [2008]; Matter of Nicholas L., 50AD3d 1141 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.