DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant, Johnnie S. contends that he was not a "person legally responsible" within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 Fam. Ct. Act(g) for the care of the abused infant, Jose S. Therefore, he claims, he cannot be found to have neglected his child, who is also named Johnnie S. The appellant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, although the appellant was not the biological father of Jose S., he was the husband of the mother of Jose S. and Johnnie S., he resided in the household at all relevant times, and was involved in the care of Jose S. Thus, the appellant was a "legally responsible" person under Family Court Act article 10 (see, Matter of Shevonne S., 188 A.D.2d 528, 529; Matter of Faith AA., 139 A.D.2d 22, 24).
Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant's abuse of Jose S. was sufficient to warrant a derivative finding of neglect with respect to Johnnie S. (see, Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i]; Matter of Tia C., 225 A.D.2d 766; Matter of Amanda LL, 195 A.D.2d 708; Matter of Ely P., 167 A.D.2d 473).
JOY, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and SMITH, JJ., concur.