| Matter of Seth G. (William S.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04000 [107 AD3d 711] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Seth G. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; William S., Appellant. |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo of
counsel; Candice C. Cho on the brief), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Adira J. Hulkower of
counsel), attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in conforming the pleadings to the proof (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of Taylor P., 63 AD3d 1161 [2009]). In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Quincy K. [Herbie W.], 92 AD3d 944, 945 [2012]). Here, the Family Court's finding of neglect based upon the father engaging in inappropriate physical contact with the subject child was supported by a preponderance of evidence (see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701 [2007]; Matter of A.G., 253 AD2d 318 [1999]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.