IN RE: ANGELICA A. and another (2021)

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Tracey A. Bing, J.), entered on or about January 25, 2021, to the extent it brings up for review amended order of fact-finding, same court (Monica D. Shulman, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2019, which found, inter alia, that respondent mother neglected her daughter Angelica, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from said order of fact-finding unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The record supports the finding that respondent neglected her then 16–year–old daughter by failing to take reasonable and appropriate steps to protect her after she disclosed that her father had sexually abused her on several occasions over a period of years (see Matter of Giannis F. [Vilma C. – Manny M.], 134 A.D.3d 457, 458, 19 N.Y.S.3d 880 [1st Dept. 2015];  see also Matter of Derrick GG. [Jennifer GG.], 177 A.D.3d 1124, 113 N.Y.S.3d 369 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 902, 124 N.Y.S.3d 313, 147 N.E.3d 583 [2020]).  There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination that the child's in-court testimony about the abuse was credible, notwithstanding certain inconsistencies (see Matter of Itzel A. [Jose V.], 188 A.D.3d 478, 479, 132 N.Y.S.3d 292 [1st Dept. 2020];  Matter of Genesis A. [Candido A.], 150 A.D.3d 616, 617, 56 N.Y.S.3d 281 [1st Dept. 2017]).  Indeed, the abuse spanned over a period of years, beginning when the child was about 11 years old, and the child's account of the abuse was detailed and consistent.  Testimony among the other witnesses also was consistent with the child's testimony.  The court acted providently in limiting cross-examination of the child and the admission of extrinsic evidence to impeach the child by showing she had a motive to fabricate her claims of abuse (see People v. Holloway, 57 A.D.3d 404, 405, 869 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 784, 879 N.Y.S.2d 61, 906 N.E.2d 1095 [2009]).

Contrary to respondent's contention, the court providently found, after an in camera review, that certain interview notes withheld by the District Attorney's Office in response to a subpoena served by respondent were protected as attorney work product (see CPLR 3101(d)(2);  see also People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 284, 285, 739 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 698, 747 N.Y.S.2d 416, 776 N.E.2d 5 [2002]).

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