Matter of Alexis Marie P.

2007 NY Slip Op 09316 [45 AD3d 458]

November 27, 2007

Appellate Division, First Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

In the Matter of Alexis Marie P., a Child Alleged to be Abused.Michael P., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent.

—[*1]Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), forrespondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Claire V. Merkine of counsel),Law Guardian.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or aboutDecember 1, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexuallyabused the subject child, released the child to non-respondent mother with supervision bypetitioner Administration for Children's Services (ACS) for a period of 12 months and directedthe mother to enforce the order of protection issued against respondent prohibiting him fromhaving contact with the child until she reaches the age of 18, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.

Respondent's challenges to the qualifications of ACS's expert in child sexual abuse areunpreserved (see Matter of Kaitlyn R., 267 AD2d 894, 896 [1999]), and we decline toreview them. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court properly exercised itsdiscretion in qualifying the expert and permitting the testimony regarding the behavior of childsexual abuse victims (see Matter of Evan Y., 307 AD2d 399, 399-400 [2003]). Theadmission of hospital records containing the child's recollections of past abuse was also properlypermitted under Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) (see Matter of Nicole V., 71NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]; Matter ofSabrina M., 6 AD3d 759, 760 [2004]).

The finding that respondent sexually abused his daughter was supported by a preponderanceof the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; § 1046 [b] [i]). The child's in-courttestimony and out-of-court statements were corroborated by the medical records and thetestimony of the child sexual abuse expert, who, after evaluating the child, concluded that shehad been abused (Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875 [1995], cert denied 516 US1093 [1996]). [*2]Once ACS established its prima facie case,respondent presented no credible evidence in his defense (see Matter of Philip M., 82NY2d 238, 244 [1993]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez andCatterson, JJ.