| Matter of David L. Jr. (David L.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04121 [118 AD3d 468] |
| June 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of David L. Jr. and Others, ChildrenAlleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. David L., Appellant; Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent. |
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner ofcounsel), for respondent.
Aleza Ross, Patchogue, attorney for the children.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered onor about February 11, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondentsexually abused his daughter and a child for whom he was legally responsible andderivatively neglected the four other subject children, released the children to the custodyof their respective mothers, ordered respondent to be in a sex offender program, andissued a one-year order of protection against him on behalf of the children, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination,and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot. Appeal from order offact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about January 14, 2013, unanimouslydismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of disposition.
The determination that respondent sexually abused two of the subject children, andthereby derivatively neglected the four other subject children, is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]).The out-of-court statements of sexual abuse made by respondent's daughter werecorroborated by the medical evidence and testimony of her counselor (see FamilyCt Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Estefania S. [Orlando S.], 114 AD3d 453, 453[1st Dept 2014]). In addition, each child's statement detailing the abuse served tocorroborate the other's (see e.g. Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124 [1987]).We perceive no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Mia B. [BrandyR.], 100 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858[2013]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in striking the testimony of respondent'sdaughter after she failed to return to complete it (Matter of Amilya Jayla S. [Princess Debbie A.], 83 AD3d582, 583 [1st Dept 2011]) and in declining to admit an alleged CD recording of hisdaughter (see Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643 [1980]).
[*2] Respondent's arguments regarding the terms of thedispositional order are moot, since the terms have expired (see Matter of Fawaz A. [FranklynB.C.], 112 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2013]).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.