Matter of Daniel D.

Matter of Daniel D. 2008 NY Slip Op 10213 [57 AD3d 444] December 30, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

In the Matter of Daniel D. and Another Children Alleged to be Neglected. John D., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, Respondent.

—[*1] John D., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Law Guardian.

Fact-finding order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on or about July 13, 2007, finding that respondent-appellant neglected his children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The preponderance of the credible evidence supports the finding, made after a hearing (see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]), that respondent subjected his two young children to emotional harm (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 370 [2004]) by encouraging them to make false allegations against their maternal grandfather that resulted in repeated and distressing interviews and medical examinations, and by engaging in a campaign to alienate the children from their mother (see Matter of Ramazan U., 303 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]). Respondent's decision not to testify allowed the court "to draw the strongest negative inference" against him (Matter of Devante S., 51 AD3d 482 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Supreme Court properly consolidated this child protective proceeding with the divorce/custody action pending before it given its extensive familiarity with the many common factual and legal issues (see e.g. Paul B. S. v Pamela J. S., 70 NY2d 739 [1987]; Kosovsky v Zahl, 52 AD3d 305, 305 [2008]). It was not a violation of CPLR 603 for the court to order consolidation on its own initiative and without a motion having been made, where the court gave all parties an opportunity [*2]to be heard (see Nelson v Lundy, 300 AD2d 967, 968 [2002]). We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.