| Matter of Kaleb B. (Harold S.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05328 [119 AD3d 780] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Kaleb B., Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Harold S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof De'ja S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Harold S., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Isaiah S. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Harold S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
John R. Eyerman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Christina Chung of counsel), for respondent.
Frederic P. Schneider, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child Kaleb B.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella ofcounsel), attorney for the children Isaiah S. and De'ja S.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Ambrosio, J.), dated March 5, 2013, which, upon an order of fact-finding of the samecourt dated October 20, 2011, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subjectchildren De'ja S. and Isaiah S. and derivatively neglected the subject child Kaleb B., interalia, placed him under the petitioner's supervision for a period of 12 months. The appealfrom the order of disposition brings up for review the order of fact-finding.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the fatherunder the petitioner's supervision for a period of 12 months is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs[*2]or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant under thesupervision of the petitioner for a period of 12 months must be dismissed as academic, asthat portion of the order expired by its own terms (see Matter of Joshua P. [David J.], 111 AD3d 836 [2013]).However, since an adjudication of neglect "constitutes a permanent and significantstigma that might indirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings," the appealfrom so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the findings of neglectand derivative neglect in the order of fact-finding dated October 20, 2011, is notacademic (Matter of Ndeye D.[Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2011] [internal quotation marksomitted]).
"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 Eugene S. [Priscilla E.], 114 AD3d 691, 691[2014]; Matter of Kiara C.[David C.], 85 AD3d 1025, 1025-1026 [2011]; see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).
Here, contrary to the father's contention, a preponderance of the evidence establishedthat he neglected the subject children De'ja S. and Isaiah S. by, inter alia, beating theirstepmother with a stick, causing bruises to her abdomen, arm, thighs, and buttocks intheir presence. The father's acts of domestic violence against the stepmother in thechildren's presence impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical,mental, or emotional condition (see Matter of Eugene S. [Priscilla E.], 114 AD3dat 691; Matter of Ariella S.[Krystal C.], 89 AD3d 1092 [2011]; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2009]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3NY3d 357 [2004]). The out-of-court statements by these children were corroboratedby, inter alia, medical evidence (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 120[1987]; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d at 1075; Matter of Linda K., 132AD2d 149, 158 [1987]; Matter of Kimberly K., 123 AD2d 865 [1986]).
The petitioner further established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the fatherderivatively neglected the child Kaleb B. (see Matter of Andrew B.-L., 43 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2007]).Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Duffy, JJ., concur.