AMANDA RESPONDENT AND SCOTT RESPONDENT APPELLANT v. << (2014)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY D. HASELEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, LOCKPORT.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed insofar as it concerns custody and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent father appeals from an order finding that he neglected the subject children.   Initially, we dismiss the appeal insofar as it concerns the placement of the children in the custody of their maternal grandmother, upon the father's consent thereto.  “No appeal lies from [that part of] an order entered upon the parties' consent” (Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 A.D.2d 1084, 1084, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652).

Contrary to the father's contention, Family Court's determination that he neglected his children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i] ).  “Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference” (Matter of Todd D., 9 AD3d 462, 463).   Petitioner presented evidence establishing, inter alia, that the family's apartment was unsafe and unsanitary, due to the neglect of the parents, and thus the court properly determined that the children's health was in imminent danger of impairment due to the father's actions and inaction (see Matter of Raven B. [Melissa K.N.], 115 AD3d 1276, 1280;  Matter of Alexis AA. [John AA.], 91 AD3d 1073, 1074, lv. denied 18 NY3d 809;  Matter of Alyssa L.D., 56 AD3d 1184, 1185, lv. denied 12 NY3d 703).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court