Opinion
2019-06515 Docket No. N-18971-18
04-14-2021
In the MATTER OF PRINCESS A.E. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Shaleyah E. (Anonymous), appellant.
Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, NY, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (MacKenzie Fillow and Jessica Miller of counsel), for respondent. Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (MacKenzie Fillow and Jessica Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Diane Costanzo, J.), dated May 2, 2019. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the subject child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the mother neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon her. The mother appeals.
"In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence" ( Matter of Elisa V. [Hung V.], 159 A.D.3d 827, 828, 71 N.Y.S.3d 626 ; see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i] ; 1046[b]; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 ; Matter of Brianna M. [Corbert G.], 152 A.D.3d 600, 601, 58 N.Y.S.3d 534 ). Contrary to the contentions of the mother and of the attorney for the child, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon her, especially in view of the age of the child, who was less then two years old at the time of the excessive corporal punishment (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B] ; Matter of Tarelle J. [Walter J.], 152 A.D.3d 593, 595, 58 N.Y.S.3d 539 ; Matter of Sylvia G. [Barbara G.], 113 A.D.3d 498, 499, 980 N.Y.S.2d 70 ; Matter of Ashanti R. [Felicia R.], 66 A.D.3d 1031, 1032, 888 N.Y.S.2d 130 ; cf. Matter of Anastasia L.D. [Ronald D.], 113 A.D.3d 685, 687, 978 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; Matter of Chanika B., 60 A.D.3d 671, 672, 874 N.Y.S.2d 251 ).
Evidence of the mother's conduct after the neglect petition was filed was admitted with adequate notice to the mother, and was relevant to the issues in the case, including the mother's credibility. The admission of that evidence was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of LeVonn G., 20 A.D.3d 530, 800 N.Y.S.2d 428 ).
DILLON, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, DUFFY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.