| Matter of Jamel T. (Gemayel T.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05647 [120 AD3d 504] |
| August 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jamel T. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Gemayel T., Appellant, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Anaya H. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Gemayel T.,Appellant, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child Jamel T.
Frank A. Buono, Staten Island, N.Y., attorney for the child Anaya H.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,Gemayel T. appeals (1) from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County(White, J.), dated March 29, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that hederivatively neglected the subject children, and (2), an order of disposition of the samecourt dated March 1, 2013, which, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositionalhearing, placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York through the next permanency hearing.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought upfor review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed thesubject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City ofNew York through the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic, as thatpermanency hearing has already been conducted (see Matter of Diamonte O. [Tiffany R.], 116 AD3d 866[2014]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs[*2]or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the allegations that he abused or neglected achild who was not the subject of these proceedings may form the basis of a finding thathe derivatively neglected the children who are the subject of these proceedings (seeFamily Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Kennedie M. [Kimberly M.], 89 AD3d 1544[2011]; Matter of Kole HH.,61 AD3d 1049, 1053 [2009]; Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701 [2007]). Further, the FamilyCourt's determination to accept as credible the testimony of the nonsubject child that, inJuly 2010, the appellant had inappropriate sexual contact with her, and to reject as notcredible the appellant's testimony that he did not engage in inappropriate sexual contactwith the nonsubject child, is entitled to deference and is accorded great weight (seeMatter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]; Matter of Kyanna T. [Winston R.], 99 AD3d 1011, 1013[2012]; Matter of Candacy C.[Clairmonte C.], 96 AD3d 836, 837 [2012]; Matter of Taylor T. [Darren T.], 73 AD3d 1075 [2010];Matter of Cassandra C., 300 AD2d 303 [2002]). The appellant's conduct towardthe nonsubject child, as well as his regular drug use, was sufficiently proximate in time tothe birth of the two subject children to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), that the appellant derivativelyneglected the two subject children (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i];Matter of Chanel T. [GuillaumeT.], 104 AD3d 953 [2013]; Matter of Kylani R. [Kyreem B.], 93 AD3d 556, 557[2012]; Matter of Jamarra S.[Jessica S.], 85 AD3d 803, 804 [2011]; Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538, 541 [2007]; Matterof Baby Boy W., 283 AD2d 584, 585 [2001]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Chambers,Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.