Opinion
797 CAF 18–00741
09-27-2019
In the MATTER OF HENRY G., Jr., Amileeana G., and Selena T. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Amelinda L., Respondent, and Danny T., Respondent-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. MICHAEL E. DAVIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL EISENMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. LORENZO NAPOLITANO, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MICHAEL E. DAVIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL EISENMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
LORENZO NAPOLITANO, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent father appeals from a fact-finding and dispositional order that, inter alia, adjudged that he neglected the subject children. We affirm. Contrary to the father's contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record supporting Family Court's determination that petitioner met its burden of establishing his neglect of the subject children (see Matter of Sean P. [Brandy P.] , 156 A.D.3d 1339, 1339–1340, 65 N.Y.S.3d 902 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 903, 2018 WL 1528127 [2018] ). We have reviewed the father's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.