MATEO v. TUTTLE (2006)

 Family Court properly granted sole custody of the parties' child to petitioner father, with supervised visitation to respondent mother.   Contrary to respondent's contention, the court properly admitted hearsay statements at the hearing on the petition.   It is well settled that there is “an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature's intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family Ct. Act § 1046(a)(vi)” (Matter of Rosario WW. v. Ellen WW., 309 A.D.2d 984, 987, 765 N.Y.S.2d 710), where, as here, the statements are corroborated (see Matter of Stacey L.B. v. Kimberly R.L., 12 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 785 N.Y.S.2d 238, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 704, 792 N.Y.S.2d 897, 825 N.E.2d 1092;  Kantrowitz v. LaRoche, 5 A.D.3d 101, 771 N.Y.S.2d 890;  Matter of Albert G. v. Denise B., 181 A.D.2d 732, 733, 580 N.Y.S.2d 478).   Contrary to respondent's further contention, the child's hearsay statements to others were sufficiently corroborated (see generally Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914).   In any event, the statements of the child to petitioner and his wife as well as statements made by a nurse to petitioner's wife were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein but, rather, were offered to explain actions taken by petitioner and his wife, and thus those statements and that testimony fall within an exception to the hearsay rule (see generally People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014;  People v. Felder, 37 N.Y.2d 779, 375 N.Y.S.2d 98, 337 N.E.2d 606).

 Respondent's “present [contention] challenging the methodology used by [petitioner's] expert[ ] was waived by the absence of timely objection on that ground” (Sampson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 256 A.D.2d 19, 19, 680 N.Y.S.2d 843, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 808, 691 N.Y.S.2d 2, 712 N.E.2d 1245), and we reject the further contention of respondent that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.   Based on our review of the record, we conclude that respondent received “meaningful assistance” at the hearing (Matter of Longo v. Wright, 19 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 796 N.Y.S.2d 483).   Finally, we have reviewed respondent's contentions concerning alleged procedural errors, and we conclude that those contentions are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: