Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PETITIONER–RESPONDENT; AUDREY B., RESPONDENT, AND MICHAEL B., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA.
THEODORE W. STENUF, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MINOA.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent-appellant (respondent) appeals from an order of fact-finding determining that he sexually abused his two stepdaughters. Contrary to respondent's contention, Family Court's findings of sexual abuse are supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Teonia B., 37 AD3d 1101, 1101). “We accord great weight and deference to [the c]ourt's determinations, ‘including its drawing of inferences and assessment of credibility,’ and we will not disturb those determinations where, as here, they are supported by the record” (Matter of Arianna M. [Brian M.], 105 AD3d 1401, 1401, lv denied _ NY3d _ [Aug. 27, 2013]; see Matter of Peter C., 278 A.D.2d 911, 911; see generally Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777).
Respondent further contends that the court abused its discretion in excluding him from the courtroom during his stepdaughters' testimony. We reject that contention. “The court properly balanced the respective interests of the parties and, based upon the hearing testimony, reasonably concluded that the [stepdaughters] would suffer substantial emotional trauma if [they] were compelled to testify in open court” (Matter of Lynelle W., 177 A.D.2d 1008, 1009; see Matter of Q.-L.H., 27 AD3d 738, 739). Moreover, the court properly based its decision to exclude respondent from the courtroom “on the social worker's affidavit that respondent's abuse of the child[ren] compromised [their] ability to give clear and accurate testimony in respondent's presence” (Matter of Hadja B., 302 A.D.2d 226, 226; see Matter of Moona C. [Charlotte K.], 107 AD3d 466, 467).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 12–00761
Decided: October 04, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)