| Matter of Amelia V.M.B. (Davidson B.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04795 [107 AD3d 980] |
| June 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amelia V.M.B., an Infant. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Davidson B., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Amelia V.M.B., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Davidson B., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Diana Lawless of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Amy Hausknecht ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County(Tally, J.), dated November 10, 2011, which, in proceeding No. 1, after a hearing, foundthat he neglected Amelia V.M.B., and (2) an order of fact-finding of the same court, alsodated November 10, 2011, which, in proceeding No. 2, after a hearing, found that hesexually abused Amelia V.M.B.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, a preponderance of the evidence established thathe neglected the subject child (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B];1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson vScoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371, 372 [2004]). The evidence presented at thefact-finding hearing was sufficient to show that the father neglected the subject child byengaging in certain acts of domestic violence in the child's presence that impaired, orcreated an imminent danger of impairing, her physical, emotional, or mental conditions(see Matter of Ndeye D.[Benjamin D.], 85 AD3d 1026, 1027-1028 [2011]; Matter of Kiara C. [David C.],85 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]). Moreover, additional evidence established a patternof domestic violence and intimidation perpetrated by the father (see Matter of KiaraC. [David C.], 85 AD3d at 1026).[*2]
In addition, a preponderance of the evidenceestablished that the father sexually abused the subject child. A child's out-of-courtstatements may form the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect if they are sufficientlycorroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability (see Family CtAct § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 123-124 [1987]).However, corroborative evidence as to the identity of an abuser is not required (seeMatter of Nichole L., 213 AD2d 750, 751-752 [1995]; Matter of Justina S.,180 AD2d 642, 643 [1992]; Matter of Fawn S., 123 AD2d 871, 873 [1986];Matter of Kimberly K., 123 AD2d 865, 865 [1986]). The Family Court's findingsregarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight on appeal unless clearlyunsupported by the record (seeMatter of Kyanna T. [Winston R.], 99 AD3d 1011, 1013 [2012]; Matter of Bianca P. [TheodoreA.P.], 94 AD3d 1126 [2012]).
Here, the subject child had a torn hymen consistent with vaginal penetration as aresult of sexual abuse, and the subject child made out-of-court statements to the motherand the foster mother identifying the father as the perpetrator of the abuse. We find noreason to disturb the Family Court's determination that the mother testified credibly as tothe out-of-court statements made by the subject child (see Matter of Kyanna T.[Winston R.], 99 AD3d at 1013; see also Matter of Joseph O'D. [Denise O'D.], 102 AD3d874 [2013]). Although the father alleged that the sexual abuse took place while thesubject child was in foster care, there was no evidence in the record to support thisallegation. Furthermore, the father had access to the subject child during the relevanttime period when the sexual abuse could have occurred.
The father's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court's findings of sexual abuse and neglect were supportedby a preponderance of the evidence. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers,JJ., concur.