Case Name: In the Matter of D.M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ali T., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-04-13
Citations: 138 A.D.3d 856
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of D.M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ali T., Appellant.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
In the Matter of D.M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ali T., Appellant.
[32 NYS3d 170]

Opinion:
Appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated May 11, 2015, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of that court, also dated May 11, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father abused the subject child.
Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In September 2014, the subject child, then 10 years old, told a police officer, who was also a school resource officer teaching a course at her school, that her father had been engaging in sexual conduct with her for the past five or six years. Following a hearing, at which a member of the child's household testified that she had witnessed the abuse on one occasion, the Family Court determined that the petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father had abused the child by subjecting her to sexual conduct as defined in article 130 of the Penal Law (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]). The father appeals.
The petitioner in a child protective proceeding has the burden of proving abuse by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Victoria P. [Victor P.], 121 AD3d 1006, 1006 [2014]; Matter of Alexis S.G. [Shanese B.], 107 AD3d 799, 799 [2013]). A child's out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse if the statements are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child's statements (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 123 [1987]; Matter of Deatrus Amir D. [Astoria D.], 136 AD3d 900, 901 [2016]; Matter of Nicole G. [Louis G.], 105 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]). The Family Court has considerable discretion in determining whether a child's out-of-court statements have been sufficiently corroborated (see Matter of Nicole G. [Louis G.], 105 AD3d at 956), and its findings must be accorded deference on appeal where the issue is primarily one of credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Deatrus Amir D. [Astoria D.], 136 AD3d at 901-902; Matter of Jada K.E. [Richard D.E.], 96 AD3d 744, 745 [2012]).
Here, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the father abused the child, where the petitioner presented the testimony of an eyewitness to the abuse to corroborate the child's out-of-court statements (see Matter of Deatrus Amir D. [Astoria D.], 136 AD3d at 902). The court's credibility determinations are supported by the record (see id.; Matter of Hayden C. [Tafari C.], 130 AD3d 924, 926 [2015]).
Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.