Opinion
03-15-2024
In the MATTER OF ADRIAN L. and Aiden S. Oneida County Department of Family and Community Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Keetoyia B. and Jason L., Respondents-Appellants.
TRACY L. PUGLIESE, CLINTON, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT KEETOYIA B. PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT JASON L. DEANA D. GATTARI, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. CHRISTINE S. KIESEL, SAUQUOIT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
Appeals from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Julia Brouillette, J.), entered June 29, 2022, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondents had neglected the subject children.
TRACY L. PUGLIESE, CLINTON, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT KEETOYIA B.
PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT JASON L.
DEANA D. GATTARI, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
CHRISTINE S. KIESEL, SAUQUOIT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., MONTOUR, OGDEN, DELCONTE, AND KEANE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondents each appeal from an order that, inter alia, determined that they neglected the subject children. As a preliminary matter, we exercise our discretion to treat respondents’ notices of appeal from the order as valid notices of appeal from the subsequently entered order of disposition (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Gina R. [Christina R.], 211 A.D.3d 1483, 1483, 180 N.Y.S.3d 745 [4th Dept. 2022]; Matter of Ariana F.F. [Robert E.F.], 202 A.D.3d 1440, 1441, 161 N.Y.S.3d 661 [4th Dept. 2022]).
[1] We reject respondents’ contention that Family Court erred in finding that they neglected the children. We conclude that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were in imminent danger of emotional impairment based upon the alleged repeated incidents of domestic violence between respondents (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Afton C. [James C.], 17 N.Y.3d 1, 8-9, 926 N.Y.S.2d 365, 950 N.E.2d 101 [2011]).
[2, 3] We further reject respondent Jason L.’s contentions that the court erred in various evidentiary rulings. Jason L.’s contention that the Utica Police Department records were not properly certified is unpreserved for our review. Jason L. additionally contends that the court erred in considering those records because they contained inadmissible hearsay. We reject that contention, inasmuch as, with respect to the police records, "[t]here is no indication that the court considered, credited, or relied upon inadmissible hearsay in reaching its determination" (Matter of Milo C. [Daniella C.], 214 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 183 N.Y.S.3d 890 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 901, 2023 WL 5967438 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
[4–6] Jason L. further contends that the court erred in considering the maternal grandmother’s testimony regarding statements made by the older subject child and the mother, because those statements constituted inadmissible hearsay. We reject that contention. The older child’s out-of-court statements relating to allegations of neglect were sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Crystal S. [Patrick P.], 193 A.D.3d 1353, 1354, 143 N.Y.S.3d 269 [4th Dept. 2021]). With respect to the mother’s out-of-court statements, we conclude that any error "is harmless because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded" (Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie F.], 126 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 5 N.Y.S.3d 660 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 910, 2015 WL 3605100 [2015]). We also reject Jason L.’s contention with respect to hearsay testimony of a supervisor employed by petitioner, because that testimony was admitted conditionally, the court later noted explicitly that it "may not consider [the supervisor’s] testimony" in reaching its decision, and there is no indication that the court relied upon that hearsay (see Milo C., 214 A.D.3d at 1351, 183 N.Y.S.3d 890).
We have reviewed respondents’ remaining contentions in both appeals and conclude that they lack merit.