| Matter of Anahys V. (John V.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09083 [68 AD3d 485] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Anahys V. and Another, Children Alleged to beAbused. John V., Appellant; New York City Administration for Children's Services, Respondent,et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), forAdministration for Children's Services, respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or aboutDecember 12, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexuallyabused the subject children, placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of SocialServices until the completion of the permanency hearing scheduled for January 29, 2009,unanimously affirmed insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and theappeal otherwise dismissed, without costs.
The children's out-of-court statements were corroborated by hospital records noting the olderchild's noticeable change in demeanor when talking about respondent; the testimony of theexpert in child psychology who found that the child's disclosures were consistent with priordisclosures to others and that her narrative was spontaneous and lacked the "robotic" quality ofcoached children; and therapy records revealing the child's repeated declarations that respondenthad abused her and her sister, and her continued anger at respondent, fear of him, and nightmaresand other symptoms (see e.g. Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875 [1995], cert deniedsub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 516 US 1093 [1996]; Matter of Shirley C.-M., 59 AD3d360 [2009]; Matter of Keisha McL., 261 AD2d 341 [1999]). Although the youngerchild's verbal limitations and lack of detail render her statement insufficient alone to support afinding of sexual abuse, the statements of the children were cross-corroborative, given thesimilarity of their accounts of respondent's conduct and the older child's repeated statements thatrespondent had [*2]touched her sister in the same way as he hadtouched her (see e.g. Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124 [1987]).
The court properly admitted the expert's report into evidence without redacting thestatements of the children's foster mother, since these statements were admitted not for their truthbut to show the information on which the expert relied in forming his opinion (see Rivera vCity of New York, 200 AD2d 379 [1994]).
Respondent's challenge to the court's denial of his request for an adjournment of thedispositional hearing is academic, as the order of disposition has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Vincent L., 46 AD3d395, 396 [2007]). In any event, respondent admittedly was not in a position to take custodyof the children, and the court properly determined that he could contest the issue of visitation atthe permanency hearing.
We have reviewed respondent's remaining contention and find it unavailing.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.