IN RE: TAJANI B. (Anonymous). (2008)

In three related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered January 4, 2007, as, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that she neglected the subject children, and directed her to submit to a mental health evaluation and a domestic violence program.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and disbursements.

 In a child protective proceeding, the party seeking to establish neglect must show, “first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840;  see Matter of Dimitriy R., 39 A.D.3d 866, 833 N.Y.S.2d 898;  Family Ct. Act § 1012[f] ).

 The petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject children were neglected by the mother (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b] [i] ).   Here, the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to prove that the mother left a loaded gun on a bed accessible to her then three-year-old son and next to her then five-month-old daughter who was in a crib, thereby creating an imminent danger that their physical, mental, and emotional health would be harmed (see Matter of Aminat O., 20 A.D.3d 480, 481, 797 N.Y.S.2d 767).

 Additionally, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in drawing a negative inference against the mother upon her failure to testify at the hearing (see Matter of Karen Patricia G., 44 A.D.3d 658, 660, 843 N.Y.S.2d 360;  Matter of Christopher L., 19 A.D.3d 597, 598, 797 N.Y.S.2d 535).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err in failing to appoint new counsel to represent her (see Matter of Moore v. McClenos, 259 A.D.2d 752, 753, 687 N.Y.S.2d 402;  Matter of Mooney v. Mooney, 243 A.D.2d 840, 841, 663 N.Y.S.2d 676).