IN RE: ANTONIO T. (Anonymous). (2019)

DECISION & ORDER

In eight related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Frank T. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated September 18, 2017, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated October 11, 2017.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that the appellant sexually abused the children Anisha J. and Diamond J., derivatively abused the children Antonio T., Quincy J., Emani T., Xavier J., Destiney J., and Omari T., and neglected all of the children.  The order of disposition, inter alia, directed the appellant to participate in a sex offender treatment program and to comply with orders of protection in favor of the children.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition;  and it is further,

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

The Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these eight related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10.  Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined, inter alia, that the appellant sexually abused Diamond J. and Anisha J., derivatively abused Antonio T., Quincy J., Emani T., Xavier J., Destiney J., and Omari T., and neglected all of the children.  The order of disposition, inter alia, directed the appellant to participate in a sex offender treatment program and to comply with orders of protection in favor of the children.

At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Cashmere T. [Andrew S.], 161 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 77 N.Y.S.3d 477;  Matter of Brianna M. [Corbert G.], 152 A.D.3d 600, 601, 58 N.Y.S.3d 534).  The Family Court's findings with respect to credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Brianna M. [Corbert G.], 152 A.D.3d at 601, 58 N.Y.S.3d 534;  Matter of Zephyr D. [Luke K.], 148 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 48 N.Y.S.3d 789).

Here, ACS demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant sexually abused the children Diamond J. and Anisha J. (see Family Ct Act § 1012[e][iii];  Penal Law § 130.45[1];  Matter of Taurice M. [Gregory A.], 147 A.D.3d 844, 844–845, 47 N.Y.S.3d 352).  The out-of-court statements of Diamond J. and Anisha J. cross-corroborated each other and were corroborated by the mother's testimony confirming certain events (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 118, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;  Matter of Asher M. [Orton M.], 158 A.D.3d 766, 767, 68 N.Y.S.3d 761;  Matter of Mateo S. [Robin Marie Y.], 118 A.D.3d 891, 893, 987 N.Y.S.2d 616;  Matter of Arique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 A.D.3d 625, 627, 975 N.Y.S.2d 82;  Matter of Tristan R., 63 A.D.3d 1075, 1077, 883 N.Y.S.2d 229).  Moreover, a derivative finding of abuse as to other children was warranted, as the evidence demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in the appellant's care (see Matter of Marino S., 100 N.Y.2d 361, 374, 763 N.Y.S.2d 796, 795 N.E.2d 21;  Matter of Naphtali A. [Winifred A.], 165 A.D.3d 781, 784, 85 N.Y.S.3d 512;  Matter of Brysen A. [Bryan A.], 161 A.D.3d 850, 851, 75 N.Y.S.3d 527).

The Family Court's determination that the appellant neglected Quincy J. and Anisha J. by virtue of his infliction of excessive corporal punishment upon them was also supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The out-of-court statement of Quincy J. was corroborated by the confirmation of events by Diamond J. and Anisha J., as well as the personal observation of his injury by both the mother and an ACS caseworker (see Matter of Era O. [Emmanuel O.], 145 A.D.3d 895, 897–898, 43 N.Y.S.3d 475;  Matter of Ishaq B. [Lea B.], 121 A.D.3d 889, 890, 994 N.Y.S.2d 405;  Matter of Arique D. [Elizabeth A.], 111 A.D.3d at 627, 975 N.Y.S.2d 82).  The out-of-court statement of Anisha J. was corroborated by the mother's personal observation of Anisha J.'s injury, as well as the out-of-court statement of Quincy J. regarding a similar incident (see Matter of Adreanna M. [Kety M.], 95 A.D.3d 1213, 1214, 945 N.Y.S.2d 154).

Further, a preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant neglected Diamond J., Anisha J., and Antonio T. based upon his failure to provide adequate dental care (see Matter of Michael P. [Orthensia H.], 137 A.D.3d 499, 500, 27 N.Y.S.3d 123;  Matter of Josephine BB. [Rosetta B.], 114 A.D.3d 1096, 1097, 981 N.Y.S.2d 212).

Finally, the Family Court's determination that the appellant neglected all of the children by exposing them to unsanitary and deplorable living conditions was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Stephen L. Jr. [Patrick S.L.], 161 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 77 N.Y.S.3d 347;  Matter of Joyitha M. [Reshmi M.], 121 A.D.3d 900, 901, 994 N.Y.S.2d 393;  Matter of China C. [Alexis C.], 116 A.D.3d 953, 954, 985 N.Y.S.2d 104).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.