| Matter of Jada A. (Robert W.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02430 [116 AD3d 769] |
| April 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jada A. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Robert W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of NaziyaD. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Robert W., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart andJane L. Gordon of counsel; Jenna Krueger on the brief), for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan Cordaro and Barbara H. Dildine ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the maternal stepgrandfather appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the FamilyCourt, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated August 29, 2012, which, after a fact-findinghearing, found that he abused the subject children, and (2) an order of disposition of thesame court dated August 30, 2012.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of disposition is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order of disposition must be dismissed, as the maternalstepgrandfather is not aggrieved by the order of disposition since it did not address ordispose of any portion of the proceedings commenced against him (see Family CtAct § 1112 [a]; Matter ofUnique R., 43 AD3d 446, 446-447 [2007]; Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 553 [2007]; Matter of Desiree C., 7 AD3d522, 523 [2004]).
The Family Court's determination that the maternal stepgrandfather sexually abusedthe subject children was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act §§ 1012 [e], [g]; 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Kassandra V. [SylviaL.], 90 AD3d 940, 941 [2011]). "It is well established that the out-of-courtstatements of siblings may properly be used to cross-corroborate one another" (Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d1075, 1076 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Adreanna M. [KetyM.], 95 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2012]; Matter of Madison H., 66 AD3d 898, 898 [2009]; Matter of Candace S., 38AD3d 786, 787 [2007]). Here, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearingestablished that, in May 2011, then-10-year-old Naziya D. and 3-year-old Jada A. madeindependent and consistent out-of-court statements to several individuals describingsimilar incidents of sexual abuse by the maternal stepgrandfather. Further, the children'sstatements were corroborated by the petitioner's progress notes and the mother'stestimony as to the children's statements (see Matter of Charlie S. [Rong S.], 82 AD3d 1248, 1249[2011]).
Additionally, where, as here, the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues ofcredibility, its findings must be accorded deference on appeal, as they were supported bythe record (see Matter of KaylaR. [Corey R.], 95 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2012]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036, 1036[2010]; Matter of AminatO., 20 AD3d 480, 481 [2005]).
The Family Court, upon a finding of abuse pursuant to Family Court Act §1012 (e), must make a further finding of the specific sex offenses that were committed,as defined in Penal Law article 130 (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [e]). Even ifthe Family Court fails to make such a finding, this Court can make the finding that theFamily Court should have made (see Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs.v Elena A., 194 AD2d 608, 609-610 [1993]; see also Matter of Sheena D., 27 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2006];Matter of Amber VV., 22AD3d 967, 968 [2005]). Accordingly, we find, based on the children's statementsand the testimony of the mother, that the maternal stepgrandfather committed offensesagainst the children as defined in and prohibited by Penal Law §§ 130.52,130.55, 130.60, 130.65 and 130.80.
The maternal stepgrandfather's remaining contention is without merit. Dickerson,J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.