Scott L., Respondent-Appellant.  (Appeal No. 1.) v. << (2006)

 Contrary to the contention of respondent in appeal No. 2, Family Court's finding that his four-year-old grandchild Kevin is a neglected child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i] [B];  § 1046[b][i] ).   The unrebutted evidence establishes that respondent neglected Kevin by striking him repeatedly with a yardstick, leaving bruises on his back and arms (see Matter of Vincent KK. v. State of New York Off. of Children & Family Servs., 284 A.D.2d 777, 725 N.Y.S.2d 766;  Matter of Simon B., 284 A.D.2d 1015, 725 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. dismissed 98 N.Y.2d 687, 746 N.Y.S.2d 688, 774 N.E.2d 753), and a single incident of excessive corporal punishment is sufficient to support a finding of neglect (see Matter of Castilloux v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 791 N.Y.S.2d 755, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 800 N.Y.S.2d 373, 833 N.E.2d 708;  Matter of Mary Ellen P. v. John R., 278 A.D.2d 750, 752, 718 N.Y.S.2d 442;  Matter of Samuel Y., 270 A.D.2d 531, 532, 703 N.Y.S.2d 591).   Contrary to the contention of respondent in appeal No. 1, the unrebutted evidence of his excessive corporal punishment with respect to Kevin justifies the court's derivative finding of neglect with respect to his grandchild Steven (see § 1046[a][i];  Matter of R./W. Children, 240 A.D.2d 207, 658 N.Y.S.2d 597, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 807, 664 N.Y.S.2d 269, 686 N.E.2d 1364).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: