IN RE: JOSEPH M. H. (Anonymous). (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated April 11, 2023.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, was entered upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated November 30, 2023, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that the father neglected the subject children.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In May 2021, the Administration for Children's Services commenced these proceedings against the father, alleging that he neglected the subject children by committing an act of domestic violence against the nonrespondent mother while the children were present in the home and within the hearing of the children.  Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the children.  The father appeals.

“ ‘A finding of neglect is proper where a preponderance of the evidence establishe[d] that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or ․ in danger of [being] impaired by the parent's commission of an act, or acts, of domestic violence in the child's presence’ ” (Matter of Easton J. [Courtney J.], ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––––, 208 N.Y.S.3d 699, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01810, *2 [2d Dept.], quoting Matter of Divine K.M. [Andre G.], 211 A.D.3d 733, 734, 179 N.Y.S.3d 714;  see Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368–372, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840).  “ ‘Even a single act of domestic violence, either in the presence of a child or within the hearing of a child, may be sufficient for a neglect finding’ ” (Matter of Easton J. [Courtney J.], ––– A.D.3d at ––––, 208 N.Y.S.3d 699, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01810, *2, quoting Matter of Divine K.M. [Andre G.], 211 A.D.3d at 735, 179 N.Y.S.3d 714).  “ ‘The credibility findings of the Family Court should be accorded great deference, as it had direct access to the parties and was in the best position to evaluate their testimony, character, and sincerity’ ” (Matter of Jayce W. [Lucinda J.], 224 A.D.3d 916, 917, 206 N.Y.S.3d 166, quoting Matter of Destiny B. [Anthony R.], 203 A.D.3d 1042, 1042, 162 N.Y.S.3d 760 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

A preponderance of the credible evidence supported a finding that the children's physical, mental, or emotional conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of impairment by the father's commission of an act of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of, or within the hearing of, the children (see Matter of Davasha T. [David T.], 218 A.D.3d 475, 477, 192 N.Y.S.3d 237;  Matter of Nina P. [Giga P.], 180 A.D.3d 1047, 1047–1048, 118 N.Y.S.3d 247).  Among other things, the evidence established that the father struck the mother in the face with a pepper bottle, causing swelling and redness, that the child Joseph M.H. was present in the room during the incident and appeared upset and afraid during the incident and was crying shortly after the incident, that the child Janelle S.H. went to her room when her parents began arguing and only exited when the police arrived at the family home, and that Janelle S.H. appeared sad while the father was arrested.  Furthermore, contrary to the father's contentions, the record supports the Family Court's credibility assessments (see Matter of Abdul R. [Abdul G.], 225 A.D.3d 881, 882, 208 N.Y.S.3d 250;  Matter of Melanie T. [Eric F.], 217 A.D.3d 872, 874, 191 N.Y.S.3d 673).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MILLER, VOUTSINAS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.