In re Samuel D.-C.
Opinion of the Court
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated October 5, 2006, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition, with prejudice.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, a finding is made that the father neglected the child Samuel D.-C., and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a dispositional hearing in accordance herewith.
A “neglected child” is defined as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent... to exercise a minimum degree of care ... in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). “Although deference should be accorded to the Family Court’s appraisal of the credibility of witnesses ... we nevertheless are free to make our own credibility assessments and, where proper, make a finding of . . . neglect based upon the record before us” (Matter of Peter R., 8 AD3d 576, 579 [2004]; see Matter of Marc A., 301 AD2d 595, 596 [2003]; Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v Carmen J., 209 AD2d 525, 527 [1994]). Upon review of this record, we conclude that the petitioner satisfactorily demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Samuel D.-C. was a neglected child (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tam
In view of our finding of neglect, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, to fashion an appropriate disposition. Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Lifson and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.