IN RE: DANIEL D. and Another (2008)

Fact-finding order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on or about July 13, 2007, finding that respondent-appellant neglected his children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The preponderance of the credible evidence supports the finding, made after a hearing (see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038 [1985] ), that respondent subjected his two young children to emotional harm (see Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 370, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004] ) by encouraging them to make false allegations against their maternal grandfather that resulted in repeated and distressing interviews and medical examinations, and by engaging in a campaign to alienate the children from their mother (see Matter of Ramazan U., 303 A.D.2d 516, 517, 756 N.Y.S.2d 442 [2003] ).   Respondent's decision not to testify allowed the court “to draw the strongest negative inference” against him (Matter of Devante S., 51 A.D.3d 482, 857 N.Y.S.2d 141 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).   Supreme Court properly consolidated this child protective proceeding with the divorce/custody action pending before it given its extensive familiarity with the many common factual and legal issues (see e.g. Paul B.S. v. Pamela J.S., 70 N.Y.2d 739, 519 N.Y.S.2d 962, 514 N.E.2d 382 [1987];  Kosovsky v. Zahl, 52 A.D.3d 305, 305, 859 N.Y.S.2d 442 [2008] ).   It was not a violation of CPLR 603 for the court to order consolidation on its own initiative and without a motion having been made, where the court gave all parties an opportunity to be heard (see Nelson v. Lundy, 300 A.D.2d 967, 968, 750 N.Y.S.2d 914 [2002] ).   We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them without merit.