Opinion
9195
05-02-2019
IN RE ALISHA A., A Child under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Nelson V., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2017, insofar as it determined that respondent Nelson V. was a person legally responsible for the subject child, and sexually abused her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that respondent sexually abused the child Alisha A. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act §§ 1046[b][i] ; 1012[e][iii][A]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038 [1985] ). The Family Court was in the best position to observe the witnesses and assess their demeanor, and there is no basis to disturb its credibility determinations (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975] ; Matter of Nasir J., 35 A.D.3d 299, 827 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2006] ).
The record supports the Family Court's determination that, at the time of the abuse, respondent was a person legally responsible for the child, because he cared for her and assumed other household duties during the period in which the abuse occurred. He also held her out as his daughter, and arranged a family outing that included her with his then-girlfriend and her family. Appellant's contentions that he had no relationship with Alisha A. were rebutted not only by the testimony of the child and her mother, but by the testimony of his girlfriend on his behalf. The fact that he may not have lived with the child consistently does not preclude the finding that he was legally responsible for the child's well-being during the relevant period (see Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228 [1996] ; Matter of Christopher W., 299 A.D.2d 268, 751 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 2002] ).
We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.