| Matter of Domynque F. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03722 [62 AD3d 697] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Domynque F. Administration for Children'sServices, Appellant; Sean C., Respondent. Steven Banks, Nonparty Appellant. (Proceeding No.1.) In the Matter of Deyon C. Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Sean C.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jordon C. Administration for Children'sServices, Appellant; Sean C., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and SuanB. Eisner of counsel), for the petitioner-appellant. Toba Beth Stutz, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent. Dean Kusakabe, Forest Hills, N.Y., attorney for the children Deyon C. and JordonC.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thepetitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.), datedMarch 21, 2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions, and the attorney forthe child Domynyque F., named here as Domynque F., separately appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much the same order as dismissed the petition asserted on that child's behalf.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Family Court Act § 1046 (b) (i) requires a finding of abuse or neglect of a child to besupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238,243-244 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter ofCommissioner of Social Servs. v Lorenzo M., 239 AD2d 498, 498 [1997]). Deferenceshould be accorded to the Family Court's assessments of the credibility of witnesses, although anappellate court is free to make its own credibility assessments. Under the circumstances of thiscase, we cannot say that the Family Court's findings were not supported by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.