Michael R., Respondent-Appellant. v. << (1999)

Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected his three children.  “Petitioner established that the three children were subjected to an environment of alcohol and substance abuse and pervasive domestic violence” (Matter of Tina L., 255 A.D.2d 868, 680 N.Y.S.2d 137) and that, as a result, each child's “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct.Act § 1012[f][i] ).   We note that the orders of fact-finding and disposition erroneously recite that the finding of neglect is based upon Family Court Act § 1012(e), which defines abuse, rather than section 1012(f)(i)(B).   We further note that respondent erroneously appealed from the decision rather than the order of disposition (see, Progressive Ins. Co. v. Rudd Spray Serv., 236 A.D.2d 874, 653 N.Y.S.2d 889).   We exercise our discretion to disregard that mistake (see, CPLR 5520[c] ) and deem the appeal to have been taken from the order of disposition (see, Matter of Ariel C., 248 A.D.2d 976, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1006, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 801, 677 N.Y.S.2d 71, 699 N.E.2d 431).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: