| Matter of Felicia N. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07956 [44 AD3d 1188] |
| October 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Felicia N. and Others, Children Alleged to beSeverely Abused and Neglected. Sullivan County Department of Family Services, Appellant;Maurice N., Respondent. |
—[*1] Glenn Kroll, Bloomingburg, for respondent. Isabelle Rawich, Law Guardian, South Fallsburg.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Meddaugh, J.),entered July 26, 2006, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's children to be severely abused and neglected.
Petitioner commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10 alleging thatrespondent had committed sexual offenses as defined in Penal Law article 130 and that hisdaughter (born in 1994) is a severely abused child within the meaning of Social Services Law§ 384-b (8). After a hearing at which only respondent and the investigator who took astatement from the child testified, Family Court found insufficient corroboration of the child'sout-of-court statements to establish either severe abuse or abuse, and dismissed the petition.
As limited by its brief on appeal, petitioner argues not that there was clear and convincingevidence to support a finding of severe abuse, but only that abuse was proven by a [*2]preponderance of the evidence. We cannot agree that even thelesser standard of proof was met here. While "[a] child's unsworn out-of-court statement relatingto abuse or neglect may be introduced into evidence at a fact-finding hearing and, if sufficientlycorroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect" (Matter of Stephen GG., 279AD2d 651, 652 [2001]), Family Court has " 'considerable discretion to decide whether the child'sout-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have, in fact, been reliablycorroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of abuse' " (Matter ofChristina F., 74 NY2d 532, 536 [1989], quoting Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112,119 [1987]; see Matter of RichardSS., 29 AD3d 1118, 1121 [2006]).
Here, petitioner attempted to corroborate the child's statement through the testimony of theinvestigator regarding admissions allegedly made by respondent. Due to inconsistencies in theinvestigator's account of those admissions, as well as respondent's adamant denials that he hadeither made the alleged admissions or committed the alleged acts, Family Court discredited theinvestigator's testimony. Where, as here, Family Court is primarily confronted with issues ofcredibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal (see Matter of Frank Y., 11 AD3d740, 742 [2004]; Matter of Joshua QQ., 290 AD2d 842, 843 [2002]). Inasmuch asthe discredited testimony was the only record evidence corroborating the child's out-of-courtstatements, we find no basis to disturb Family Court's decision.
Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.