| Matter of Arianna L. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07913 [55 AD3d 733] |
| October 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Arianna L., a Child Alleged to be Abused andNeglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Anuvis V.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Scott Shorrof counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Judith Harris of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals froman order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated November 5, 2007, which,upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 22, 2007, made after a hearing, finding thatshe had abused and medically neglected the subject child, placed the child with the Administration ofChildren's Services. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 22, 2007.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination pursuant to Family CourtAct § 1012 (e) (i) that she abused her daughter, Arianna, is supported by a preponderance ofthe evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82NY2d 238 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]).
The child sustained first and second degree burns to her ears, nipples, left underarm, and abdomen.The petitioner's medical expert, Dr. Heon, testified that the child's injuries were [*2]intentionally inflicted and were inflicted by the direct application of athermal object. "[O]nce a petitioner in a child abuse case has established a prima facie case, the burdenof going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability" (Matter of PhilipM., 82 NY2d 238, 244 [1993]). Here, the mother failed to provide a reasonable and adequateexplanation for the injuries. The Family Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility should not bedisturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Cassandra C., 300 AD2d303, 304 [2002]; Matter of H. Children, 276 AD2d 485 [2000]; Matter of Carine T.,183 AD2d 902 [1992]).
Further, the court correctly found pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (A) that themother medically neglected the child when she failed to seek prompt medical attention after observingthe injuries (see Matter of C. Children, 207 AD2d 888 [1994]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Millerand Leventhal, JJ., concur.