IN RE: N.C.M. and Others (2025)

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2024, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i]).  The mother credibly testified that the respondent broke the lock to her apartment and proceeded to assault her while two of the children were in an adjacent room.  Her account has ample support in the record both from the caseworker's regarding her observation of the broken lock in the mother's apartment, and the interview she conducted of the middle child.  The out-of-court statements of the middle child that the respondent broke into the home, and struck the mother with an open hand was corroborated by the testimonial evidence of both the mother and the caseworker (see Matter of Ymani C.D. [Peter J.D.], 217 A.D.3d 562, 563, 192 N.Y.S.3d 37 [1st Dept. 2023];  Matter of Jamya C. [Jermaine F.], 165 A.D.3d 410, 410, 82 N.Y.S.3d 715 [1st Dept. 2018]) and thus properly considered.  The fact that the domestic violence occurred in close proximity to the two younger children permits an inference of impairment or imminent danger of impairment, even in the absence of evidence that the children were aware of it or emotionally affected by it (see Matter of J.A. [Jermaine M.], 233 A.D.3d 428, 428, 223 N.Y.S.3d 52 [1st Dept. 2024];  Matter of Athena M. [Manuel M.T.], 190 A.D.3d 644, 644, 136 N.Y.S.3d 740 [1st Dept. 2021]).  There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975];  Matter of Elijah C., 49 A.D.3d 340, 852 N.Y.S.2d 764 [1st Dept. 2008]).  Because respondent did not testify, Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him as the opposing evidence would allow (see Matter of B.C. [Bernadette C.], 215 A.D.3d 584, 585, 188 N.Y.S.3d 34 [1st Dept. 2023]).

A preponderance of the evidence also supports the finding that respondent derivatively neglected the oldest child, though not at home at the time of the incident (see Matter of Iscela G. [Lorenzo T.], 193 A.D.3d 521, 522, 141 N.Y.S.3d 840 [1st Dept. 2021];  Matter of Autumn P. [Brandy P.], 121 A.D.3d 454, 455, 994 N.Y.S.2d 104 [1st Dept. 2014]).