IN RE: RAYMOND D. (2007)

 Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, adjudicated her son to be neglected and her daughter to be derivatively neglected.   We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference from her failure to appear for several days of testimony at the fact-finding hearing.   Although a negative inference may properly be drawn against a party based on his or her failure to testify (see Ralph M. v. Nancy M., 280 A.D.2d 995, 996, 721 N.Y.S.2d 192), the mother testified on her own behalf at the fact-finding hearing, notwithstanding her occasional absences.   We conclude, however, that petitioner established that the mother neglected her son by a preponderance of the admissible evidence, i.e., that her excessive use of corporal punishment against her son and her perpetration of acts of violence in her son's presence created an imminent danger of harm to the child's physical, mental, and emotional health (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B];  Matter of Sanjeeda M., 24 A.D.3d 445, 805 N.Y.S.2d 427;  see also Matter of Demetrius B., 28 A.D.3d 1249, 813 N.Y.S.2d 611, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 812, 854 N.E.2d 1276).   We reject the further contention of the mother that petitioner failed to establish that she derivatively neglected her daughter.   The neglect of the mother's son “ ‘is so closely connected with the care of [the mother's daughter] as to indicate that [she] is equally at risk’ ” (Matter of A.R., 309 A.D.2d 1153, 1153, 764 N.Y.S.2d 746, quoting Matter of Marino S., 100 N.Y.2d 361, 374, 763 N.Y.S.2d 796, 795 N.E.2d 21, cert. denied 540 U.S. 1059, 124 S.Ct. 834, 157 L.Ed.2d 714).

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

MEMORANDUM: