Matter of Jared M. (Ernesto C.)

Matter of Matter of Jared M. (Ernesto C.) 2012 NY Slip Op 06733 Decided on October 9, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 9, 2012
Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse, JJ.
8213

[*1]In re Jared M., and Another, Children Under 18 Years of Age etc.,

and

Ernesto C., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Steven M. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Michael
J. Pastor of counsel), for respondent.

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, determined that respondent had neglected the subject children for whom he was legally responsible, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]). The record shows that police responded to complaints of marijuana use in the apartment building where respondent lived with his girlfriend and her two young children. A detective, upon smelling a strong odor of marijuana emanating from respondent's apartment, knocked on the door, and when respondent answered, the detective saw marijuana in plain view. Following respondent's arrest, a search of the apartment recovered large amounts of marijuana located throughout the home, including over 130 individual packages of the substance.

Under the circumstances, the court properly found that respondent's conduct posed an imminent danger to the children's physical, mental and emotional well-being (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]; Matter of Eugene L. [Julianna H.], 83 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590 [1st Dept 2003]). There is no basis to disturb the court's evaluation [*2]of the evidence, including its credibility determinations (see Matter of Ilene M., 19 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2005]). The fact that the children were not home at the time of respondent's arrest does not warrant a different determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 9, 2012

CLERK