Matter of Sonia C. (Juana F.)
2010 NY Slip Op 01058 [70 AD3d 468]
February 11, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010


In the Matter of Sonia C. and Another, Children Alleged to beAbused and/or Neglected. Juana F. et al., Respondents; New York City Administration forChildren's Services, Appellant.

[*1]Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel),for appellant. Cozen O'Connor, New York (Jill L. Mandell and Kenneth G. Roberts of counsel),Law Guardian for Felicia D. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (LouiseFeld of counsel), Law Guardian for Sonia C.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 1,2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the allegations of sexual abuse and neglect againstrespondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although a trial court's findings on credibility should rarely be disturbed, they must still besupported by the record (Matter of Melissa P., 261 AD2d 141, 142 [1999], lvdenied 95 NY2d 762 [2000]; Matter of Dora F., 239 AD2d 228, 230 [1997], lvdenied 92 NY2d 805 [1998]). Here, the record supports the court's conclusion that sexualabuse was not established in accordance with Family Court Act § 1012 (e) by apreponderance of credible evidence (§ 1046 [b] [i]), since the child's testimony wasinconsistent, vague and lacking in specific details, and the testimony of other witnesses did notindependently corroborate her allegations. On the other hand, respondent mother's testimony,viewed as a whole, is consistent with that of the other witnesses. Because the court'sdetermination of her credibility was based on observations of her demeanor, which we do nothave the benefit of evaluating, we will accord it "the greatest respect" (Matter of IreneO., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

Although the court should not have dismissed the neglect allegations without stating on therecord the grounds for the dismissal (Family Ct Act § 1051 [c]), these allegations simplywere not supported by credible evidence, and nothing in the record shows that respondents [*2]otherwise failed to provide a minimum degree of care (§1012 [f] [i]) or that the children suffered harm as a result thereof. Concur—Mazzarelli,J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.