| Matter of Jasmine W. (Michael J.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 07513 [132 AD3d 774] |
| October 14, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
In the Matter of Jasmine W.Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Michael J. et al., Respondents.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jaylen J. Administration for Children's Services,Appellant; Michael J. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jalisa H.Administration for Children's Services, Appellant; Michael J. et al., Respondents.(Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Jada W. Administration for Children's Services,Appellant; Michael J. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 4.)
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing andDiana Lawless of counsel), for appellant.
Emmanuel F. Ntiamoah, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent Michael J.
Janis A. Parazzelli, Floral Park, N.Y., for respondent Coy-Retta W.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkineof counsel), attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), datedDecember 3, 2014. The order, after a hearing, denied those branches of the amendedpetitions of the Administration for Children's Services which were to remand the subjectchildren to its care and custody. By decision and order on motion dated December 22,2014, this Court granted the petitioner's motion to stay enforcement of so much of theorder as directed the remand of the children Jasmine W., Jalisa H., and Jaylen J. to therespondent Michael J.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, thosebranches of the amended petitions of the Administration for Children's Services whichwere to remand the subject children to its care and custody are granted, and the matter isremitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistentherewith.
[*2] A credibility assessment of ahearing court is accorded considerable deference on appeal unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Arthur G. [TiffanyM.], 112 AD3d 925, 925-926 [2013]; 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, 1004 [2006]).Where, as here, the Family Court's credibility determination is not supported by therecord, this Court is free to make its own credibility assessments and overturn thedetermination of the hearing court (see Matter of Arthur G. [Tiffany M.], 112AD3d at 926; Matter of SerenityS. [Tyesha A.], 89 AD3d 737, 739 [2011]; Matter of Chanyae S. [Rena W.], 82 AD3d 1247 [2011]; Matter of Melissa O. [DavidO.], 73 AD3d 783 [2010]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that in light of, among other things, thehistory of the respondents' drug use, violence, and mental health issues, the children'slives or health would be at imminent risk if they were released to the custody and care ofthe mother and Michael J. during the pendency of these proceedings (see FamilyCt 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 these proceedings, the imminent risk to the children's lives or health could not bemitigated by reasonable efforts short of removal from the respondents' care and custody(see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 378). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson andCohen, JJ., concur.