| Matter of Dave D. (Mary E.S.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08102 [78 AD3d 829] |
| November 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Dave D. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Mary E.S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealsfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ruiz, J.), dated September 3,2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 3, 2009, made after ahearing, finding that she had neglected the subject child, inter alia, placed her under thesupervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months. The appealfrom the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 3, 2009.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellantunder the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months isdismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order of dispositionexpired by its own terms (see Matter ofJordan E., 57 AD3d 539 [2008]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The determination of the Family Court that the appellant mother was guilty of neglect wassupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i][B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117[1987]). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing showed that the mother reasonablyshould have known that the child was in imminent danger of being sexually abused and that themother's behavior constituted a willful omission in the protection of the subject child (see Matter of Jasmine [*2]B., 4 AD3d 353, 354 [2004]; Matter of ChristinaP., 275 AD2d 783, 784 [2000]; Matter of Sara X., 122 AD2d 795, 796 [1986]).Contrary to the mother's contention, the child's out-of-court statements that the mother was awareof the abuse were reliably corroborated by the mother's admissions (see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d at 117-118; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d1060, 1061 [2009]; Matter of ErichJ., 22 AD3d 849, 850 [2005]; Matter of James A., 217 AD2d 961 [1995]).Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.