Case Name: In the Matter of Gregory S., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Heather S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Natalie S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-04-03
Citations: 39 A.D.3d 552
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Gregory S., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Heather S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Natalie S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 552–552

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Gregory S., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Heather S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Natalie S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gregory S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)
[831 NYS2d 726]

Opinion:
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated April 3, 2006, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the subject children.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's determination that he neglected the subject children by virtue of his drug use and his commission of an act of domestic violence in their presence is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Michelle L., 24 AD3d 443, 444 [2005]; Matter of Ayana Jean L., 23 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d 541, 542 [2005]; Matter of Aminat O., 20 AD3d 480, 481 [2005]; Matter of Ziaire M., 309 AD2d 938, 939 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.