IN RE: ZIYODA S. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), dated May 29, 2024.  The order, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Janiyah S. [Pedro H.], 226 A.D.3d 909, 910, 210 N.Y.S.3d 186;  see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]).  Unsworn out-of-court statements of the subject child may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi];  Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d 806, 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486).  “[G]enerally a petitioner must present nonhearsay, relevant evidence to reliably corroborate the out-of-court disclosures” (Matter of Treyvone A. [Manuel R.], 188 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 133 N.Y.S.3d 292).  “Mere ‘repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate the child's prior account of it’ ” (Matter of Elina M. [Leonard M.], 236 A.D.3d 25, 36, 224 N.Y.S.3d 136, quoting Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 124, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914).  “Family Court Judges presented with the issue have considerable discretion to decide whether [a] child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have, in fact, been reliably corroborated” (Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d at 119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914).

Here, the record, taken as a whole, failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations of neglect (see Matter of Treyvone A. [Manuel R.], 188 A.D.3d at 1183–1184, 133 N.Y.S.3d 292;  Matter of Nicole G. [Louis G.], 105 A.D.3d 956, 956–957, 962 N.Y.S.2d 705).  The child's out-of-court statements that the mother neglected her, inter alia, by employing excessive corporal punishment were not sufficiently corroborated by nonhearsay, relevant evidence tending to support the reliability of the statements (see Matter of Elina M. [Leonard M.], 236 A.D.3d at 36, 224 N.Y.S.3d 136;  Matter of Treyvone A. [Manuel R.], 188 A.D.3d at 1184, 133 N.Y.S.3d 292).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.