IN RE: L.D. (2025)

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gigi N. Parris, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2024, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent neglected the subject child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that respondent neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment (see Family Court Act §§ 1012[f][i][B];  1046[b][i];  Matter of Peter G., 6 A.D.3d 201, 206, 774 N.Y.S.2d 686 [1st Dept. 2004], appeal dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 655, 782 N.Y.S.2d 693, 816 N.E.2d 566 [2004]).  The record demonstrates that respondent hit, slapped, and punched the child, and struck the child with a cast iron pan, a spoon, a wooden cane, and an extension cord.  Additionally, the child's detailed testimony about the specific incidents of corporal punishment and the frequency of abuse demonstrates that respondent's conduct was neither isolated nor reasonable in degree (see Matter of Ibraheem K. [Jacqueline N]., 190 A.D.3d 643, 644, 136 N.Y.S.3d 884 [1st Dept. 2021]).  The court's decision to credit the child's testimony over respondent's is entitled to deference, and we find no basis to disturb that credibility determination, especially since the child's testimony was subject to extensive cross-examination and respondent's testimony was inconsistent and evasive (see Matter of Sylvia G. [Barbara G.], 113 A.D.3d 498, 499, 980 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2014]).

We reject respondent's assertion that petitioner did not meet its burden of proof by failing to present any corroborating evidence beyond the child's testimony.  The child's testimony was sufficient, and the absence of physical injury or other medical corroboration is not dispositive (see Matter of Andrew R. [Andrew R.], 146 A.D.3d 709, 710, 46 N.Y.S.3d 87 [1st Dept. 2017]).  In any event, the child's guidance counselor's testimony constitutes sufficient corroboration of the abuse.  The guidance counselor testified that she observed several long scratches or cuts on the child's forehead and that the child later stated that respondent caused those scratches.  The guidance counselor also testified that during the same conversation, the child wore a very short haircut and disclosed that respondent cut the child's hair because the child was “bad.”  Respondent's own admissions also bolstered the child's account (see Matter of C.L. [Edward L.], 214 A.D.3d 481, 482, 184 N.Y.S.3d 348 [1st Dept. 2023]).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.