Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: TALIYA G., and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Jeannie M., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided: November 19, 2009

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, ABDUS-SALAAM, JJ. Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mordecai Newman of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Hal Silverman of counsel), Law Guardian.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected the subject children, placed the children in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Social Services of New York County until the completion of a permanency hearing scheduled for January 15, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 There is no basis for rejecting the court's finding, based on its credibility determinations (see Matter of Nakym S., 60 A.D.3d 578, 877 N.Y.S.2d 241 [2009] ), that respondent knew or should have known of her live-in boyfriend's drug business but nevertheless allowed him to reside in the apartment with her seven-year-old son, who had access to the drugs stored in the dresser in his bedroom (see Matter of Roy R., 6 A.D.3d 213, 774 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2004];  Matter of Michael R., 309 A.D.2d 590, 765 N.Y.S.2d 358 [2003] ).   In Matter of Hiram V., 162 A.D.2d 453, 556 N.Y.S.2d 678 [1990], on which respondent relies, it was found that there was no imminent risk of harm because the mother was estranged from the father and credibly denied knowledge of the presence of narcotics.

 There was no need for a delegation of authority for the laboratory report analyzing the drugs, because the report was not a hospital or private agency record “relating to a child” (see Family Court Act § 1046[a][iv] ).   There were reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the drugs (see People v. Valdez, 41 A.D.3d 316, 837 N.Y.S.2d 563 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 883, 842 N.Y.S.2d 795, 874 N.E.2d 762 [2007];  People v. Epps, 8 A.D.3d 85, 777 N.Y.S.2d 909 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 673, 784 N.Y.S.2d 12, 817 N.E.2d 830 [2004] ).

 The finding of derivative neglect with respect to the younger child, an infant, is supported by the evidence of neglect with respect to the older child, which demonstrates “such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [respondent's] care” (Matter of Joshua R., 47 A.D.3d 465, 466, 849 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 703, 864 N.Y.S.2d 807, 894 N.E.2d 1198 [2008] ).   In addition, evidence showed that the seven-year-old had access to the drugs and could have given them to the infant;  petitioner was not required to demonstrate that the children were left together unsupervised.