| Matter of Arthur G. (Tiffany M.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08626 [112 AD3d 925] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Arthur G. Administration for Children'sServices, Appellant; Tiffany M. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Zainab Akbar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent Tiffany M. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thepetitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.), datedMarch 8, 2013, which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, ineffect, granted the parents' application to parole the subject child to their custody underthe petitioner's supervision, pending determination of the petition. By decision and orderon motion of this Court dated March 18, 2013, enforcement of the order was stayedpending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, theparents' application is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, KingsCounty, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Following a hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, at whichthe parents testified, the Family Court directed that the subject child be paroled to theparents' custody under the petitioner's supervision, pending the determination of theproceeding. The petitioner appeals.
A credibility assessment of a hearing court is accorded considerable deference onappeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of IreneO., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]; Matter of Andrew B. [DeborahB.], 73 AD3d 1036 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003 [2006]). Where, ashere, the Family Court's credibility determination is not supported by the record, thisCourt is free to make its own credibility assessments and overturn the determination ofthe hearing court (see Matter ofSerenity S. [Tyesha A.], 89 AD3d 737, 739 [2011]; Matter of Chanyae S. [RenaW.], 82 AD3d 1247 [2011]; Matter of Melissa O. [David O.], 73 AD3d 783 [2010]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that in light of, among other things, thesubject child's age and the documented history of the parents' drug use, the child's life orhealth [*2]would be at imminent risk if he were releasedto the custody and care of his parents during the pendency of this proceeding (seeFamily Ct Act § 1027 [a], [b], [d]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368-370 [2004]).Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that, during the pendencyof this proceeding, the imminent risk to the child's life or health could not be mitigatedby reasonable efforts short of removal (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at378). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.