| Matter of Sarah W. (Barbara G.F.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08341 [122 AD3d 931] |
| November 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sarah W. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Barbara G.F., Appellant. |
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X.Hart and Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A.Newbery of counsel), attorney for the child.
Appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County(Marybeth S. Richroath, J.), dated December 11, 2013, and (2) an order of disposition ofthat court dated January 24, 2014. The order dated December 11, 2013, found that themother neglected the subject child. The order dated January 24, 2014, insofar as appealedfrom, released the child to the custody of the father and, upon the mother's consent, setforth the terms and conditions of her visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 11, 2013, is dismissed,without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated January24, 2014, and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order dated January 24,2014; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 24, 2014, as setforth the terms and conditions of visitation is dismissed, without costs or disbursements,as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party(see CPLR 5511; Matterof Nivia L.C. [Shani C.], 106 AD3d 996, 997 [2013]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 24, 2014, is affirmed insofar as reviewed,without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the subject child is supportedby a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f][i] [B]; Matter of Nivia L.C.[Shani C.], 106 AD3d 996, 997 [2013]; Matter of Rakim W., 17 AD3d 376, 377 [2005]). Theevidence presented at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the mother engaged inconduct which either impaired the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition, orcreated an imminent risk of impairment (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f] [i] [B]; Matter of KathleenK., 66 AD3d 683, 684 [2009]). Although the mother largely disputed theallegations against her, the Family Court's finding that she was not a credible [*2]witness is entitled to deference (see Matter of RakimW., 17 AD3d at 377; Matterof Todd D., 9 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]), and is fully supported by the record.
The out-of-court statements of a child may form the basis for a finding of neglect ifthey are corroborated, as was the case here, by other evidence tending to support thereliability of such statements. "[T]he testimony of the child shall not be necessary tomake a fact-finding of abuse or neglect" (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi];see Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532, 536 [1989]; Matter of Christopher L., 19AD3d 597, 597 [2005]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Malteseand Duffy, JJ., concur.