Matter of Tamara D. (Randolph P.)

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (White, J.), dated June 8, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the same court dated December 21, 2013, as, in effect, denied his application for a suspended judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,

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

The Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the subject child is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Ariella S. [Krystal C.], 89 AD3d 1092 [2011]; Matter of Kiara C. [David C.], 85 AD3d 1025 [2011]; Matter of Ndeye D. [Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026 [2011]).

Also, given the father’s failure to admit responsibility for his *814 neglectful actions and to take corrective measures, including participation in the services offered to him prior to disposition, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application for a suspended judgment at disposition (see Matter of Victoria C. [Cassandra C.], 106 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2013]; Matter of Phillips N. [Joy N.], 104 AD3d 690, 691-692 [2013]; Matter of Ganesha B. [Nyesha H.], 78 AD3d 500 [2010]).