Opinion
2013-06-5
In the Matter of SETH G. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; William S. (Anonymous), appellant.
Jessica Sin, Little Neck, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo of counsel; Candice C. Cho on the brief), for respondent.
Jessica Sin, Little Neck, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo of counsel; Candice C. Cho on the brief), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Adira J. Hulkower of counsel), attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in conforming the pleadings to the proof ( see Family Ct. Act § 1051[b]; Matter of Taylor P., 63 A.D.3d 1161, 881 N.Y.S.2d 304). In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168;Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038;Matter of Quincy K. [ Herbie W.], 92 A.D.3d 944, 945, 938 N.Y.S.2d 904). Here, the Family Court's finding of neglect based upon the father engaging in inappropriate physical contact with the subject child was supported by a preponderance of evidence ( see Matter of Ian H., 42 A.D.3d 701, 840 N.Y.S.2d 202;Matter of A.G., 253 A.D.2d 318, 686 N.Y.S.2d 396).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.