Opinion
2012-12-19
In the Matter of JOSUE M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Pascaul A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Raquel M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Pascaul A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Jennifer A. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Pascaul A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Rosse C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Pascaul A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 4).
Placidus Aguwa, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Placidus Aguwa, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child Raquel M.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Pascual A. appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), entered September 8, 2011, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated November 29, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon a finding that he had abused the child Raquel M., and had derivatively abused the other three subject children, inter alia, directed that he not have contact with three of the children until their 18th birthdays, that he only have supervised visits with one of the subject children, and that he complete a sex offender program.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718); 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 Kassandra v. [ Sylvia L.], 90 A.D.3d 940, 941, 935 N.Y.S.2d 607;seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Ndeye D. [ Benjamin D.], 85 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 926 N.Y.S.2d 119). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's determination that he sexually abused the child Raquel M. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1012[e][iii]; Penal Law § 130.55; Matter of Lindsay B. [ Carlton B.], 80 A.D.3d 763, 764, 916 N.Y.S.2d 778). The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports such a finding ( see Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 536, 549 N.Y.S.2d 643, 548 N.E.2d 1294;Matter of Alexander M. [ Benjamin M.], 88 A.D.3d 794, 795, 930 N.Y.S.2d 893). Here, Raquel M.'s sworn in-court testimony sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court description of the abuse ( see Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d at 536–537, 549 N.Y.S.2d 643, 548 N.E.2d 1294;Matter of Bianca M., 282 A.D.2d 536, 536, 722 N.Y.S.2d 766).
The appellant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.