| Matter of Kaitlynn I. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05863 [64 AD3d 654] |
| July 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kaitlynn I., a Child Alleged to be Abused andNeglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Jennifer I., Also Known asJennifer M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jonathan M., aChild Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Jennifer I., Also Known as Jennifer M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and EllenRavitch of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Eugene F. Crowe, Glendale, N.Y., attorney for the child Kaitlynn I. Mark E. Strauss, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child Jonathan M.
In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court,Queens County (Richardson-Mendelson, J.), dated July 23, 2007, as, after a hearing, found thatshe had neglected the child Kaitlynn I. and, in effect, had derivatively neglected the childJonathan M.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that she neglected herdaughter, Kaitlynn I., and derivatively neglected her son, Jonathan M., is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter ofPhilip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3[1985]; Matter of Domynque F., 62AD3d 697 [2009]).
The petitioner's medical expert testified that Kaitlynn I. sustained numerous bruises onvarious parts of her body which were not consistent with accidental causes and were inflicted bya blunt, flexible instrument. This evidence of injuries, which ordinarily would not occur absentan [*2]act or omission of the person responsible for the care ofthe child, constituted prima facie evidence of neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a] [ii]). Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the parent to offer asatisfactory explanation for the injuries (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d at 244; Matter of Aniyah F., 13 AD3d529, 530 [2004]).
Here, the Family Court found, inter alia, that the testimony of the mother was not credibleand that she failed to provide a reasonable and adequate explanation for the injuries. This findingis supported by the record and we find no reason to disturb it (see Matter of DomynqueF., 62 AD3d at 697; Matter ofArianna L., 55 AD3d 733 [2008]; Matter of Steven Glenn R., 51 AD3d 802, 803 [2008]). Rivera,J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.