| Matter of Celeste O. (Calvin A.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04939 [119 AD3d 586] |
| July 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Celeste O. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Calvin A., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Jorge O. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Calvin A., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jillian M.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Calvin A., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Azzria A. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Calvin A., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 4.) |
Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Christina Chung of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, CalvinA. appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.),dated May 7, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subjectchildren.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
[*2] Contrary to the appellant'scontention, the Family Court's determination that he neglected the subject children wassupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]). Where, as here, issues of credibility arepresented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference (see Matter of Michael T. [CaitlinF.], 111 AD3d 750 [2013]). The credible evidence adduced at the hearingestablished, inter alia, that the appellant and the mother of the subject children engagedin acts of domestic violence against each other while the children were nearby, and thatthe children were frightened by the altercations. Under these circumstances, the FamilyCourt correctly determined that the subject children's physical, mental, or emotionalcondition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the appellant'sfailure to exercise a minimum degree of care (see Matter of Carmine G. [Franklin G.], 115 AD3d 594[2014]; Matter of Angie G.[Jose D.G.], 111 AD3d 404 [2013]; Matter of Jayden B. [Erica R.], 91 AD3d 1344 [2012]; Matter of Madison PP. [TinaQQ.], 88 AD3d 1102 [2011]; Matter of Celine O. [Johanna Q.], 68 AD3d 1373[2009]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson,Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.