The finding of neglect was established by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; see also Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368). Petitioner satisfied its initial prima facie showing of neglect by expert medical testimony establishing that the child sustained immersion burns to the buttocks, which were "of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the parent" (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]). Respondent failed to rebut the presumption of culpability with a credible and reasonable explanation of how the child suffered the burns and why she did not seek treatment earlier ( see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 244-245). Furthermore, there exists no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations, particularly its decision to credit the opinion of petitioner's expert over that of respondent's expert ( see Matter of Ashanti A., 56 AD3d 373; Matter of Benjamin L., 9 AD3d 153, 155).