Terrell H., Matter of

• Citation: 603 N.Y.S.2d 737,197 A.D.2d 372
• Parties: In the Matter of TERRELL H., Latisha H. and Jemellah W., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Alberta F., Respondent-Appellant, James W., Respondent, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.
• Decision Date: 07 October 1993
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 737

603 N.Y.S.2d 737

197 A.D.2d 372

In the Matter of TERRELL H., Latisha H. and Jemellah W., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Alberta F., Respondent-Appellant, James W., Respondent, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Oct. 7, 1993.

Final Order of Disposition of the Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered November 18, 1991, which, inter alia, continued the three children in placement for a nine month period from October 1, 1991, which order followed a fact-finding determination dated July 20, 1991 (Virginia Yancey, J.) that appellant and respondent had neglected Terrell and Latisha by inflicting excessive corporal punishment and by appellant's failing to attend to the needs of said children for counseling, with a derivative finding as to Jemellah, and order entered July 29, 1990 denying a motion for vacatur of a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that appellant was guilty of neglect of her daughters Terrell and Latisha by virtue of having inflicted excessive corporal punishment (Family Court Act § 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of C. Children, 169 A.D.2d 481, 564 N.Y.S.2d 354) and failing to provide the children with adequate psychological or psychiatric care (Matter of Sharnetta N., 120 A.D.2d 276, 281, 509 N.Y.S.2d 7) was amply supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Michael B., 60 A.D.2d 628, 400 N.Y.S.2d 169). Thus, the derivative finding was also proper (Matter of James P., 137 A.D.2d 461, 464, 525 N.Y.S.2d 38). Nor was there any violation of appellant's due process rights (see, Matter of Michael G., 129 Misc.2d 186, 190, 492 N.Y.S.2d 993), and the other contentions raised do not warrant reversal. Finally, any argument regarding the Family Court Act § 1028 hearing is moot in light of the neglect finding (Matter of Toni "WW", 52 A.D.2d 108, 111, 383 N.Y.S.2d 98).

MURPHY, P.J., and KASSAL, RUBIN and NARDELLI, JJ., concur.