Matter of Tayleese M. C. (Tunisha H.)
Ordered that the appeal from the order of disposition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the order of fact-finding; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order of disposition, except insofar as it brings up for review the order of fact-finding dated May 9, 2011, must be dismissed as academic, as the order of disposition has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Cheryale B. [Michelle B.], 121 AD3d 976, 976-977 [2014]; Matter of Kaleb B. [Harold S.], 119 AD3d 780, 780-781 [2014]; Matter of Ndeye D. [Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2011]; Matter of Alanie H., 83 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2011]). “However, since the adjudication of neglect ‘constitutes a permanent and significant stigma that might indirectly affect the appellant‘s status in future proceed-
“[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see
Here, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court‘s determination that the mother neglected the child T‘mya A.C. by using excessive corporal punishment and committing acts of domestic violence against the father while in the child‘s presence, which impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, the child‘s physical, mental, or emotional condition (see Matter of Dylan G. [Victor M.], 119 AD3d 786, 787 [2014]; Matter of Nurridin B. [Louis J.], 116 AD3d 770, 771-772 [2014]; Matter of Eugene S. [Priscilla E.], 114 AD3d 691, 691 [2014]; Matter of Michael G.C. [Michael C.], 103 AD3d 890, 891 [2013]).
The Family Court‘s determination that the father and T‘mya testified credibly, whereas the mother‘s testimony lacked credibility, is entitled to considerable deference on appeal, and, on this record, there is no basis to disturb that determination (see Matter of Arique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 AD3d 625, 627 [2013]; Matter of Candacy C. [Clairmonte C.], 96 AD3d 836, 836 [2012]; Matter of Christiana C. [Carleton C.], 86 AD3d 606, 607 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948, 949 [2009]). In addition, the mother‘s contention that the Family Court improperly admitted testimony from T‘mya without determining whether she was competent to testify under oath is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, this contention is without merit, as the record is sufficient to establish that T‘mya was capable of testifying as a sworn witness (see Matter of Robert F., 297 AD2d 610 [2002]).
The derivative finding of neglect as to the child Tayleese M.C. is also supported by the evidence (see
The mother‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Chambers, J.P., Dickerson, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.