IN RE: J.S. (2025)

Order of disposition, Supreme Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2024, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, orally rendered September 6, 2024, as memorialized in an order of fact-finding entered on or about October 7, 2024, finding that respondent abused and neglected the subject child, and derivatively abused and neglected the child's siblings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that respondent sexually abused the subject child (Family Ct Act § 1012[e][iii]), inflicted excessive corporal punishment (Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]), and derivatively abused and neglected the remaining children in the home (see Matter of Kylani R. [Kyreem B.], 93 A.D.3d 556, 557, 941 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2012];  Matter of Alejandra B. [Alejandro A.], 135 A.D.3d 480, 22 N.Y.S.3d 823 [1st Dept. 2016]).  The child's sworn, in-court testimony as to the allegations did not require corroboration (see Matter of D.F. [Erica L.], 228 A.D.3d 500, 500–501, 213 N.Y.S.3d 304 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Respondent's intent to gain sexual gratification was properly inferred from the acts themselves, absent any other explanation (see Matter of Dorlis B. [Dorge B.], 132 A.D.3d 578, 579, 18 N.Y.S.3d 327 [1st Dept. 2015]).  As to the excessive corporal punishment determination, respondent's conduct in disciplining the child, including punching her, went beyond the pale (see Matter of Dayanara V. [Carlos V.], 101 A.D.3d 411, 412, 955 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1st Dept. 2012]), and the punishment “was not appropriate in form or degree” (Matter of Empress B. [Henrietta L.], 204 A.D.3d 562, 563, 165 N.Y.S.3d 298 [1st Dept. 2022]).

Contrary to respondent's contentions, during the trial, the court noted his counsel's objections and instructed the child's testimony accordingly.  Further, respondent had an opportunity to cross-examine the child, and the court had the opportunity to observe the child as she testified to the allegations, and found her to be credible (see Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 537, 549 N.Y.S.2d 643, 548 N.E.2d 1294 [1989]).  Respondent provides no basis for this Court to disregard the court's reasoned credibility determinations, which should be afforded deference (see Matter of Luis P., 161 A.D.3d 59, 62, 74 N.Y.S.3d 221 [1st Dept. 2018], affd 32 N.Y.3d 1165, 93 N.Y.S.3d 255, 117 N.E.3d 814 [2018]).

To the extent nonrespondent mother argues that the court erred in ordering the release of the three younger children to her care under ACS supervision for 12 months on disposition, the mother did not appeal, and thus cannot now challenge the disposition (see Matter of Gelani M. [Paul M.], 222 A.D.3d 484, 486, 202 N.Y.S.3d 289 [1st Dept. 2023]).

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