IN RE: N.H. (2026)

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined, after a hearing, that respondent was a person legally responsible for the subject child N.H., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that respondent was a person legally responsible for N.H. Respondent did not testify, therefore the court “was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him as the opposing evidence would allow” (Matter of N.C.M. [Christian A.], 239 A.D.3d 475, 476, 233 N.Y.S.3d 49 [1st Dept 2025] ).  That evidence included the mother's testimony, undisputed by respondent, that he is N.H's biological father, was the mother's fiancé and lived with her prior to his arrest, and held himself out as N.H's father (see Matter of Trenasia J.[Frank J.], 25 N.Y.3d 1001, 1006, 10 N.Y.S.3d 162, 32 N.E.3d 377 [2015];  Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 796, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228 [1996];  Matter of Alisha A. [Nelson V.], 172 A.D.3d 403, 403–04, 99 N.Y.S.3d 309 [1st Dept 2019] ).  The fact that respondent was removed from the home before N.H. was born, due to his arrest and prosecution on the charges that gave rise to these petitions, does not outweigh the evidence supporting the finding that respondent is a person legally responsible for the subject child (see Matter of Tristian B. [Winston B.], 201 A.D.3d 583, 584, 158 N.Y.S.3d 558 [1st Dept 2022];  Matter of Iscela G. [Lorenzo T.], 193 A.D.3d 521, 522, 141 N.Y.S.3d 840 [1st Dept 2021] ).