| Matter of Mateo S. (Robin Marie Y.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04497 [118 AD3d 891] |
| June 18, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Mateo S. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Robin Marie Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofAlysa S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Robin Marie Y., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Anthony S. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Robin Marie Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Joseph S.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Robin Marie Y., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Selena Y. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Robin Marie Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) |
Linda Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart andJane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.
Erin K. Colgan, Staten Island, N.Y., attorney for the children Joseph S. and AlysaS.
In five related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Richmond County(Lim, J.), dated January 14, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that sheneglected the children Joseph S., Alysa S., and Mateo S., and derivatively neglected thechildren Anthony S. [*2]and Selena Y.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) defines a "neglected child" as a childless than 18 years of age whose physical, mental, or emotional condition has beenimpaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of hisor her parent or other person legally responsible for his or her care to exercise a minimumdegree of care in, inter alia, "providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship,by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof,including the infliction of excessive corporal punishment . . . or by anyother acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the court" (Family Ct Act§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]). In a child protective proceeding, "[u]nswornout-of-court statements of the [subject child] may be received and, if properlycorroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect" (Matter of Nicole V., 71NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Anthony S. [DawnN.], 98 AD3d 519, 520 [2012]).
Here, a caseworker testified at the hearing that Joseph, then age eight, told her that heand his older brother Mateo had gotten into a fight, that Mateo threw a knife at him and,when their mother intervened, Mateo punched her and she punched him back and alsopunched Joseph during the incident. Two days after the incident, the caseworkerobserved a small bruise on Joseph's thigh that he said was inflicted by Mateo, as well asscratches on his neck caused by Mateo choking him and a scar on his back inflicted byhis oldest brother Anthony when Anthony hit him with a broom. Alysa, then age five, corroborated Joseph's account of the violence in the home (see Matter of NicoleV., 71 NY2d at 118; Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter ofAnthony S. [Dawn N.], 98 AD3d at 520), telling the caseworker that the oldersiblings frequently fought with each other and their mother, and that their mother wouldhit Anthony and Mateo back. Alysa also reported to the caseworker that she and Josephwere left home alone often or with their older siblings, and that they were afraid of theolder siblings because they would hit, slap, or choke them. The caseworker also testifiedthat Mateo told her that he had an argument with Joseph on the day on which the allegedphysical altercation occurred and that their mother separated them.
The mother testified at the hearing, admitting that the older children, Anthony,Selena, and Mateo, frequently engage in physical altercations, and that one time she wasrunning late and was not home when Alysa exited from the school bus. The mother alsoadmitted that she broke up the fight at issue between Mateo and Joseph, but deniedhitting either of them and denied that Joseph's injuries were a result of the fight. Themother also denied that Mateo threw a knife during the incident and said that she had aknife at the time because she was making sandwiches. The mother also testified that thechildren were coerced or intimidated into lying to the caseworker, and that Joseph andMateo rarely fight.
Here, the out-of-court statements of siblings Alysa and Joseph to the caseworkerwere corroborated by the caseworker's personal observations, the two children's owncross-corroborating statements, confirmation of certain events by their older sister Selenaand brother Mateo, and certain statements by the mother, and were properly consideredby the Family Court (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matterof Nicole V., 71 NY2d at 118; Matter of Arique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 AD3d 625, 627[2013]; Matter of MariaDaniella R. [Maria A.], 84 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2011]). Moreover, the FamilyCourt determined that the mother's strenuous assertions that Alysa and Joseph were neverleft home alone and never physically abused by their older siblings, and her insistencethat the children must have been coerced or intimidated into reporting such matterslacked credibility. The court's determination regarding the mother's credibility is entitledto great deference on appeal (see Matter of Arique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 AD3dat 627; Matter of Jada K.E.[Richard D.E.], 96 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]; Matter of Jeshaun R. [Ean R.], 85 AD3d 798, 799 [2011];Matter of Candace S., 38AD3d 786, 787 [2007]).
In addition to the finding that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of[*3]care in supplying Alysa and Joseph with propersupervision or guardianship (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]),the record likewise supports the Family Court's finding that, during the altercationbetween Joseph and his older brother Mateo, Mateo punched the mother and shepunched Mateo back. Thus, the Family Court's determination that Alysa, Joseph, andMateo were neglected, and that Anthony and Selena were derivatively neglected, issupported by the record.
The mother's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.