In re Desiree L.
Opinion
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated July 14, 2004, made after a fact-finding hearing, as found that he had neglected Desiree L. and Dylan L.
[484]*484Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father’s contention, the testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing, which led to the order dated July 14, 2004, was sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he neglected Dylan L. and Desiree L. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f|; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Curtis N, 290 AD2d 755, 757 [2002]; Matter of Brent B., 279 AD2d 817 [2001]; cf. Matter of Jemila PP., 12 AD3d 964 [2004]).
The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
28 A.D.3d 483 (In re Desiree L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.