Opinion
January 5, 1999.
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.).
The finding that respondent was not providing the child with adequate shelter and had refused assistance in obtaining alternative housing is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is by itself sufficient to support the finding of neglect (see, Commissioner of Social Servs. [Pedro F.], 212 A.D.2d 400). Thus, respondent's claim that he was not given notice of the additional finding that the child was neglected by his having left her in the care of her mother, who respondent knew or should have known was a drug abuser (see, Matter of R./W. Children, 240 A.D.2d 207, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 807; Matter of K. Children, 253 A.D.2d 764), is academic. The claim is also unpreserved, since respondent neither objected to the introduction of the report of suspected child abuse that was the basis of this new, unpleaded allegation nor requested an adjournment to prepare a rebuttal (see, Matter of Michelle S., 195 A.D.2d 721). We reject respondent's challenge to the directive in the order of disposition that he undergo random drug testing, given the evidence that respondent had been in a three-year relationship with a known crack user and the social worker's report of suspected child abuse stating that both parents were addicted to crack.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.