Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: E. L., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Justin L., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Anna R. Lewis, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2023, which found, after a fact-finding hearing, that respondent father neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence established that the father, by committing domestic violence against the child's mother on May 31, 2022, posed an imminent danger to the then seven-month-old child's physical, mental or emotional well-being (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]; Matter of J.A.W. [Lance W.], 216 A.D.3d 480, 481, 188 N.Y.S.3d 66 [1st Dept. 2023]). Although the father contends that Family Court erred in concluding that the mother's testimony was more credible than his, there exists no basis to disturb the court's evaluation of the evidence, including its credibility findings (see Matter of Y.H. [Mohamed H.], 219 A.D.3d 1247, 1248, 197 N.Y.S.3d 15 [1st Dept. 2023]; Matter of Ilene M., 19 A.D.3d 106, 106–107, 796 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept. 2005]).
Contrary to the father's contention, the evidence shows that the child's emotional and mental conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired by her exposure to the domestic violence he perpetrated against the mother. The mother's testimony establishes that the child was on her lap when the father punched the mother in the jaw, notwithstanding the absence of evidence that the child was aware of the incident or emotionally affected by it (see Matter of Athena M. [Manuel M.T.], 190 A.D.3d 644, 644, 136 N.Y.S.3d 740 [1st Dept. 2021]; Matter of Isabella S. [Robert T.], 154 A.D.3d 606, 607, 62 N.Y.S.3d 362 [1st Dept. 2017]).
The father's argument concerning petitioner's purported failure to have the maternal grandmother testify at the fact-finding hearing is unpreserved and unavailing. The father never sought a missing witness charge during the fact-finding hearing, and there is no evidence that the grandmother witnessed the incident (see Matter of Ethan M. [Miguel M.], 223 A.D.3d 471, 471–472, 203 N.Y.S.3d 538 [1st Dept. 2024]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3117
Decided: November 26, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)