Matter of Taylor C. (Christin C.)

Matter of Taylor C. v Christin C. 2011 NY Slip Op 07671 Decided on November 1, 2011 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 November 1, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick, Román, JJ.
5899

[*1]In re Taylor C., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

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




George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Andrew
S. Wellin of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel
of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2010, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of neglect (Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]; § 1046[b][i]). Respondent's mother testified that she witnessed respondent push the then one-month-old child, causing the child to slide across the floor from one room to another. This single incident is sufficient to support a finding of neglect, given that the child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent risk of being impaired as a result of respondent's behavior (see Matter of Jared S. [Monet S.], 78 AD3d 536 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

Family Court properly drew the strongest negative inference from respondent's failure to appear and testify (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79-80 [1995]; Matter of Cantina B., 26 AD3d 327, 328 [2006]). The court did not deprive respondent of due process by holding the fact-finding hearing in her absence. The record shows that respondent received notice of the proceedings and was represented by counsel; that the court repeatedly adjourned the proceedings due to respondent's often unexplained absences; and that respondent provided incorrect contact information (see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Elizabeth T. [Leonard T.], 3 AD3d 751, 753 [2004]).

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 1, 2011

CLERK