IN RE: BRICE L. (Anonymous) (2006)

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated November 15, 2004, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he had neglected the subject children.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established a prima facie case that he neglected the subject children by failing to provide proper supervision and guardianship on several occasions which placed the subject children in imminent risk of harm and resulted in actual harm to one of the children (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B];  Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840).   Based upon our review of the record and deferring to the Family Court's resolution of credibility issues (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337;  Matter of Sylvia J., 23 A.D.3d 560, 562, 804 N.Y.S.2d 783;  Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of New York, o/b/o F. Children v. Clifton F., 207 A.D.2d 836, 837, 616 N.Y.S.2d 981), we conclude that the Family Court's determination that the father neglected the subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of James HH., 234 A.D.2d 783, 652 N.Y.S.2d 633;  see also Matter of Brown v. Johnson, 294 A.D.2d 241, 742 N.Y.S.2d 279).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adding a new allegation of neglect by granting the petitioner's motion for leave to amend the petition to conform to the proof concerning an incident that occurred after the filing of the original petition (see Family Ct. Act § 1051[b];  Matter of Michelle S., 195 A.D.2d 721, 600 N.Y.S.2d 303;  Matter of Shawniece E., 110 A.D.2d 900, 488 N.Y.S.2d 733).   Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner was not precluded from seeking leave to amend the petition on the basis of a report made to the State Central Register concerning the recent incident since the caseworker testified that the report had been investigated by Child Protective Services and was approved to be “indicated” (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][v];  cf. Social Services Law §§ 412[12], 422[5][b];  cf. Matter of Joseph T., 23 A.D.3d 482, 805 N.Y.S.2d 87;  Matter of Diane P., 110 A.D.2d 354, 494 N.Y.S.2d 881).

The father's remaining contention is without merit.