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.
— A- IN RE: Daniela R., and Others, Children Under the Age Of Eighteen Years, etc., Daniel R., Respondent–Appellant,
Administration for Children's Services,
Petitioner–Respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child Daniela R.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the children Adonis R., Danieda R. and Esniel R.
_
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexually abused his daughters Danieda R. and Daniela R., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 4, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superceded by the appeal taken from the orders of disposition.
The finding that respondent sexually abused his two daughters was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the sworn testimony of the daughters (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[e][iii]; 1046[b][I]; Matter of Christina G. [Vladimir G.], 100 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 859 [2013] ). There exists no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see generally Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776 [1975] ). Furthermore, the record shows that respondent presented no credible evidence to explain his conduct except to claim that he was never alone with his daughters. However, this testimony was contradicted by his own testimony and that of his wife (see Matter of Elizabeth S. [Dona M.], 70 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2010] ).
The record also demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent inappropriately touched his daughters for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. In this regard, the court properly drew a negative inference against him as to that issue, because gratification may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and respondent failed to offer an innocent explanation for his actions (see Matter of Jani Faith B. [Craig S.], 104 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2013] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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: 1289 4 1289 4 1289 5
Decided: June 26, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)