DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner made out a prima facie case of neglect against the appellant by introducing evidence that the injury that the child suffered normally would not have occurred absent her act or omission, and that she was the child's caretaker at the time the injury occurred ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; Matter of Raymond C., 151 A.D.2d 388; cf. Matter of Sharonda S., 301 A.D.2d 532; Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Carmen J., 209 A.D.2d 525). In response, the appellant failed to rebut this evidence of parental culpability ( see Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238; cf., Matter of Sharonda S., supra at 533). Accordingly, the court properly found that she neglected the child ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]).
A review of the record reveals that the appellant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [i]; Matter of Matthew C., 300 A.D.2d 394).
FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.