(Appeal No. 1.) v. << (2003)

In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order finding that he sexually abused his seven-year-old daughter, and in appeal No. 2 he appeals from an order finding derivative abuse with respect to his two other children.   All three children were placed under the supervision of petitioner for 12 months upon various conditions.   We reject the contention that respondent was denied effective assistance of counsel.   Respondent has failed to establish that he was deprived of meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

We reject the further contention of respondent that Family Court erred in refusing to allow leading questions of his own witness:  his wife and the children's mother.   That ruling was proper inasmuch as the witness was not adverse to respondent (cf.  Matter of Bryan W., 299 A.D.2d 929, 749 N.Y.S.2d 347;  Jordan v. Parrinello, 144 A.D.2d 540, 541, 534 N.Y.S.2d 686) and did not otherwise appear hostile toward respondent or unwilling to answer his attorney's questions (see Matter of Ostrander v. Ostrander, 280 A.D.2d 793, 720 N.Y.S.2d 635;  Marzuillo v. Isom, 277 A.D.2d 362, 363, 716 N.Y.S.2d 98;  Jordan, 144 A.D.2d at 541, 534 N.Y.S.2d 686;  Segreti v. Putnam Community Hosp., 88 A.D.2d 590, 592, 449 N.Y.S.2d 785;  see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-228 [Farrell 11th ed] ).

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

MEMORANDUM: