In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated August 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that she had neglected the child Rudolph A.H. and derivatively neglected the child Yanni D.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After a fact-finding hearing under Family Court Act article 10, any determination that a child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667, 668 [2003]). Neglect may be established by even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Padmine M. [Sandra M.], 84 AD3d 806, 807 [2011]; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d 1060 [2009]). The Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]).
The evidence also supported the derivative finding of neglect as to the child Yanni D. (see Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d at 949; Matter of Jordan W., 59 AD3d 558 [2009]; Matter of Devontay M., 56 AD3d 561, 562 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.