| Matter of Nicholas L. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04088 [50 AD3d 1141] |
| April 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nicholas L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Ahmad K.A., Jr., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Khalid Jaheim L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Ahmad K.A., Jr., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matterof Amari L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Ahmad K.A., Jr., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart and MartaRoss of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel),attorney for the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition ofthe Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated February 26, 2007, as, after a hearing, foundthat he neglected the child Nicholas L. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him,and found that he derivatively neglected the children Amari L. and Khalid Jaheim L.[*2]
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding that he neglected the childNicholas L. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). A child'sout-of-court statements may form the basis for a finding of neglect as long as they are sufficientlycorroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability (see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Rico D.,19 AD3d 416 [2005]). The Family Court has considerable discretion in decidingwhether the statements have been sufficiently corroborated (see Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759, 760-761 [2006]). Here,Nicholas L.'s out-of-court statements that the appellant struck him in the face were sufficientlycorroborated by the caseworker's observation of Nicholas L.'s facial injuries (see Matter ofRico D., 19 AD3d at 416; Matter of Daniel L., 302 AD2d 321 [2003]). Furthermore,we note that the appellant was convicted of criminal charges based on the same conduct (seeMatter of Jeovanny P., 213 AD2d 717 [1995]; cf. Matter of Suffolk County Dept. ofSocial Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182-183 [1994]). Finally, the findings of derivativeneglect as to the children Khalid Jaheim L. and Amari L. are supported by evidence indicatingthe appellant's lack of understanding of his parental responsibility (see Matter of Rico D.,19 AD3d at 416-417; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Noreen K.],242 AD2d 533, 534 [1997]). Ritter, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.