From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Steven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

August 17, 1992

Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 20, 1990, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition dated February 14, 1991; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition dated February 14, 1991, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court's determination that the appellant father had sexually abused his daughter is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1). The validating testimony of the child abuse expert constituted sufficient corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements (see, Matter of Nicole V., supra; Matter of Linda K., 132 A.D.2d 149). Moreover, where as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776; Matter of Cleo K-H, 172 A.D.2d 524). We find no basis in the record before us to disturb the court's resolution of those issues. In addition, the absence of physical evidence did not preclude a finding of sexual abuse (see, Matter of Linda K., supra).

Furthermore, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the appellant's request that an expert of his own choosing be permitted to perform a second validation assessment of the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1038 [c]; Matter of Jessica R., 78 N.Y.2d 1031). Additionally, the failure of the Commissioner of Social Services to inform the appellant within the statutorily-allotted time whether the report was "indicated" or "unfounded" (see, Social Services Law § 424), did not require the outright dismissal of the petition (see, Lazich v. Perales, 146 Misc.2d 831; see also, Social Services Law § 422 [a] [i]).

We have examined the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Steven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Steven

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SKYE B. STEVEN B., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 17, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
586 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

Matter of Shedrick

We find unpersuasive the appellant's contention that the Family Court's finding of sexual abuse was not…

Matter of Lakeesha

Lakeesha's mother testified that she told investigators that she saw respondent lying naked in bed with…