Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to dismiss the petition ( see Family Ct Act § 1051 [c]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025-1026; cf. Matter of Jodi S., 179 AD2d 653). However, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence ( see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d at 1026; Matter of Leon G., 7 AD3d 524; cf. Matter of Austin v Austin, 254 AD2d 703).
Upon our independent review of the evidence, we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court's ultimate determination that the allegations of neglect were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368, 371; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the credible evidence did not establish that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision ( see Matter of Charles N., 83 AD2d 947; cf. Matter of Antonio NN., 28 AD3d 826; Matter of James HH., 234 AD2d 783; Matter of Eric M., 90 AD2d 717). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.