| Matter of Astrid C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06545 [43 AD3d 819] |
| September 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Astrid C., a Child Alleged to be Abused andNeglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Angelica C. et al., Appellants.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Amber C., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Angelica C. et al., Appellants. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Tiffany C., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Angelica C. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 3.) In theMatter of Jordan T.C., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Angelica C. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No.4.) |
—[*1] Elliot Green, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant John R. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Ronald E. Sternberg and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), LawGuardian.
In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the FamilyCourt, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated July 18, 2005, as, after a hearing, found that she sexuallyabused and neglected the child Amber C., and derivatively abused and neglected the childTiffany C., and the mother and father separately appeal (2), as limited by their respective briefs,from stated portions of an order of disposition of the same court dated February 24, 2006, which,inter alia, after a dispositional hearing and upon the fact-finding order dated July 18, 2005,finding that they sexually abused and neglected the child Amber C., and derivatively abused andneglected the child Tiffany C., placed the children Amber C. and Tiffany C. in the custody of theCommissioner of Social Services of Kings County, (3) from a decision of the same court datedFebruary 24, 2006, and (4), as limited by their respective briefs, from stated portions of an orderof fact-finding and disposition of the same court also dated February 24, 2006, which found, ineffect, that each of them derivatively neglected and abused the children Astrid C. and JordanT.C., and, inter alia, placed these children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Servicesof Kings County.
Ordered that the mother's appeal from the fact-finding order dated July 18, 2005 is dismissed,without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order ofdisposition dated February 24, 2006; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeals from the decision dated February 24, 2006 are dismissed, withoutcosts or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Family Ct Act §1112 [a]; Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition dated February 24, 2006 is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated February 24, 2006 is affirmed,without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the appellants sexually abused Amber and derivativelyabused Tiffany. Contrary to the appellants' contentions, Amber's out-of-court statementsconcerning the abuse were sufficiently corroborated. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046(a) (vi), "previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglectshall be admissible in evidence, but if uncorroborated, such statements shall not be sufficient tomake a fact-finding of abuse or neglect. Any other evidence tending to support the reliability ofthe [*2]previous statements, including, but not limited to thetypes of evidence defined in this subdivision shall be sufficient corroboration." "The rulerequiring corroboration is flexible, and any other evidence tending to support the reliability of thechild's statements may be sufficient corroboration . . . [and] [t]he Family Court, asthe trier of fact, has considerable discretion in determining whether the child's statements aresufficiently corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of abuse" (Matter of Christopher L., 19 AD3d597, 597 [2005] [citations omitted]). Here, the Family Court did not err in admitting intoevidence a report concerning similar allegations of sexual abuse made by another child of theappellants, to whom their parental rights had been previously terminated, and finding thatAmber's allegations of abuse were corroborated by that evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [a] [i], [iv]; Matter ofBeverly R., 38 AD3d 668 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 801 [2007]; Matter of Kila DD., 28 AD3d 805[2006]; Matter of Joshua B., 28AD3d 759 [2006]).
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the petitioner established by a preponderance of theevidence that Amber was neglected and that Tiffany was derivatively neglected as a result of thefather's acts of domestic violence against the mother. Moreover, the Family Court properlyfound, in effect, that the appellants derivatively abused and neglected the children Astrid andJordan (see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178[1994]; see also Matter of AmberC., 38 AD3d 538 [2007];Matter of Daniel W., 37 AD3d 842 [2007]; Matter of Alexis C., 27 AD3d 646 [2006]).
The appellants' remaining contentions either are without merit, do not warrant reversal, orneed not be reached in light of our determination. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ.,concur.