In re Laura C.
This text of 108 A.D.3d 666 (In re Laura C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court (Gruebel, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, upon the fact-finding order dated January 31, 2012, and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, released the subject child to the custody of the mother.
[667]*667Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected” (Matter of Amber C. [Miguel C.], 104 AD3d 845, 846 [2013]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Adelia V. [Braun], 91 AD3d 659, 661 [2012]). The Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]; Matter of Joseph O'D. [Denise O’D.], 102 AD3d 874, 875 [2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313 [2012]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]). Here, contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing, including the sworn testimony of the child, was sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sexually abused the subject child (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [e] [iii]; 1046 [b] [i]; Penal Law §§ 130.52, 130.55, 130.60; Matter of Karen Patricia G., 44 AD3d 658, 660 [2007]; Matter of Latifah C., 34 AD3d 798, 799 [2006]). Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
108 A.D.3d 666, 969 N.Y.S.2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-laura-c-nyappdiv-2013.