IN RE: D.N. (2026)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Yael Wilkofsky, J.), entered on or about September 5, 2025, which found, after a hearing, that respondent father neglected three of the subject children and derivatively neglected the fourth subject child by committing acts of domestic violence in their presence and in close proximity, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i] ), and there is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Troy B. [Troy D.], 121 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2014] ).  The record shows that the father neglected the children on February 28, 2024, by engaging in a physical altercation with the children's mother in their presence (see Matter of O'Ryan Elizah H. [Kairo E.], 171 AD3d 429, 429 [1st Dept 2019] ).  The case worker's testimony established that three children all reported that the father struck the mother in the face and stomach, causing her pain and injuries.  Their independent statements corroborated each other and were further corroborated by the caseworker's own observations that the mother had a swollen eye and bloody nose (see Matter of J.A.W. [Lance W.], 216 AD3d 480, 481 [1st Dept 2023] ).  Contrary to the father's contention, even a single incident of domestic violence may support a neglect finding (see Matter of Athena M. [Manuel M.T.], 190 AD3d 644, 645 [1st Dept 2021] ).  Moreover, two of the children were in fact immediately affected by the incident, hearing the mother begging the father to stop the attack, so much so that they were prompted to call 911.

The court correctly concluded that the fourth child was derivatively neglected as the child was in close proximity to the father's attack on the mother when it happened, and the father displayed such an impaired level of parental judgment so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in his care (see Matter of Iscela G. [Lorenzo T.], 193 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2021] ).

Finally, the record does not show that the court “interrupted” the father's counsel's voir dire of the arresting officer.  Nor was it an abuse of discretion to allow the officer's testimony (see Matter of V.B. [Nicole A.], 231 AD3d 527, 527 [1st Dept 2024] ).  “Contrary to the [father's] argument, the record does not show that Family Court relied on documents from [his] dismissed criminal case in finding [he] neglected the children.  Instead, the record indicates that Family Court credited the police officer's testimony, which was based upon [her] personal recollection” (id.).

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.