Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the petition that alleges neglect of Joseph P.; as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the petition on behalf of Joseph P. is reinstated, the allegation of neglect of Joseph P. is found to be established, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a dispositional hearing.
The Family Court erred by dismissing the petition that alleges that Joseph P. is a neglected child. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing establishes that Joseph's father inflicted excessive corporal punishment on Joseph, which resulted in bruises and a laceration to the child's buttocks and a buckle-shaped bruise on his back (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Norland B., 191 A.D.2d 632; Matter of Eli G., 189 A.D.2d 764; Matter of Ely P., 167 A.D.2d 473). Since the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Joseph is a neglected child, we so find and remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a dispositional hearing.
A finding that a child is neglected does not automatically result in a finding of derivative neglect with regard to that child's siblings (see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 A.D.2d 694). Under the circumstances of this case, we find that a derivative finding of neglect with respect to Joseph's 15-year-old sister Gina is not warranted (see, Matter of John S., 175 A.D.2d 207). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.