Opinion
12357 12357A Dkt. No. NA-6486/17 Case No. 2018–5524
11-12-2020
IN RE ADA G.-L., a Child Under Years of Age Alleged to be Abused/Neglected Under Article of the Family Court Act. Christopher G.-L., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, New York (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amy McCamphill of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, New York (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amy McCamphill of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Patria Frias–Colo´n, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2018, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 11, 2018, which found that respondent father sexually abused the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.
The finding of sexual abuse is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act §§ 1012[e][iii][A] ; 1046[b][i] ). The child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by her other adoptive father, then separated from respondent, and his partner's testimony, which was consistent with the caseworker's testimony about the statements the child had made to investigators, and the child's hearing testimony was consistent with those statements (see Matter of Crisnell F. [Dennis V.], 172 A.D.3d 546, 98 N.Y.S.3d 750 [1st Dept. 2019] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations.
Respondent failed to rebut the evidence of his culpability (see Matter of Elizabeth S. [Dona M.], 70 A.D.3d 453, 453–454, 894 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2010] ; Matter of Benjamin L., 9 A.D.3d 153, 155, 780 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept. 2004] ). He offered no innocent explanation as to his actions, and, absent any other explanation, his intent to gain sexual gratification was properly inferred from the act itself (see Matter of Dorlis B. [Dorge B.], 132 A.D.3d 578, 18 N.Y.S.3d 327 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Penal Law § 130.00[3] ).