Opinion
2013-07-17
In the Matter of LAURA C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Eduardo C. (Anonymous), appellant.
Cheryl Charles–Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Cheryl Charles–Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for the child.
, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court (Gruebel, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, upon the fact-finding order dated January 31, 2012, and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, released the subject child to the custody of the mother.
ORDERED that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected” (Matter of Amber C. [ Miguel C.], 104 A.D.3d 845, 846, 961 N.Y.S.2d 492;seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Adelia V. [ Braun ], 91 A.D.3d 659, 661, 937 N.Y.S.2d 78). The Family Court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference ( see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337;Matter of Joseph O'D. [ Denise O'D.], 102 A.D.3d 874, 875, 958 N.Y.S.2d 731,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 1235516;Matter of Yanni D. [ Hope J.], 95 A.D.3d 1313, 944 N.Y.S.2d 923;Matter of Sadiq H. [ Karl H.], 81 A.D.3d 647, 915 N.Y.S.2d 867). Here, contrary to the father's contention, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing, including the sworn testimony of the child, was sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sexually abused the subject child ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 1012[e][iii]; 1046[b][i]; Penal Law §§ 130.52, 130.55, 130.60; Matter of Karen Patricia G., 44 A.D.3d 658, 660, 843 N.Y.S.2d 360;Matter of Latifah C., 34 A.D.3d 798, 799, 826 N.Y.S.2d 333).