| Matter of Jahani K. (Felicia K.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07735 [111 AD3d 832] |
| November 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jahani K., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Felicia K., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Ajayi K., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Felicia K., 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 John A. Newbery ofcounsel), attorney for the child Jahani K.
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of theFamily Court, Queens County (Arias, J.), dated September 18, 2012, as, upon an order offact-finding of the same court dated April 10, 2012, made after a hearing, finding thatshe had neglected the child Jahani K., placed the child Jahani K. in the custody of theNew York City Administration for Children's Services until a permanency hearing couldbe conducted. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the order offact-finding.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order offact-finding dated April 10, 2012, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from theorder of disposition (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the childJahani K. in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children's Servicesuntil a permanency hearing could be conducted is dismissed as academic, without costsor disbursements, since Jahani K. has been returned to the custody of the mother; and it isfurther,[*2]
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmedinsofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In connection with a fact-finding hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 10, any determination that the child is abused or neglected must be based on apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matterof Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1[1985]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667, 668 [2003]).
Hearsay statements detailing physical abuse, when corroborated by any otherevidence tending to support their reliability, may be the basis for a finding of abuse orneglect (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d at 119; Matter of Adreanna M. [KetyM.], 95 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2012]; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2009]). TheFamily Court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerabledeference unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter ofAdreanna M. [Kety M.], 95 AD3d 1213 [2012]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.],81 AD3d 647 [2011]; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d at 1061).
The Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the child Jahani K., based onexcessive corporal punishment, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Joseph O'D. [Denise O'D.], 102 AD3d 874, 875[2013]; Matter of Yanni D.[Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2012]; Matter of Amerriah S. [Kadiatou Y.], 100 AD3d 1006,1007 [2012]; Matter of PadmineM. [Sandra M.], 84 AD3d 806, 807 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948 [2009]; Matter of Derek J., 56 AD3d558 [2008]). The evidence of excessive corporal punishment presented at thefact-finding hearing included the testimony of a caseworker who interviewed Jahani andobserved welts and scars consistent with being hit by a cord or a belt, and the mother'stestimony in which she admitted hitting Jahani with a belt, but claimed to do so for thepurpose of disciplining him. In addition, Jahani's statements to the caseworker that themother regularly hit him with a cord or belt were corroborated by the evidence (seeMatter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d at 119; Matter of Adreanna M. [Kety M.], 95AD3d at 1214; Matter of Rachel H., 60 AD3d at 1061).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, photographs of Jahani's bruises taken by anagency caseworker, and certified hospital records of Jahani's medical examinationfollowing this incident, were properly admitted in evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 1046 [a] [iv]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Dickerson,Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.