Opinion
15880-15880A Dkt. No. NA-12530-31/19 Case No. 2021-02164
05-05-2022
In the MATTER OF JACOB V. and Another, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Daniel V., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent. Aleza Ross, Patchogue, attorney for the children.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.
Aleza Ross, Patchogue, attorney for the children.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Oing, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order of fact-finding, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about March 23, 2021, which, after a hearing, found that respondent father sexually abused the subject child, Jacob V., and derivatively abused the subject child, Jovanty V., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 17, 2020, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
The determination that respondent sexually abused Jacob is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B] ; 1046[a][i]; [b][i]). The child's out-of-court statements in a videotaped interview and to an agency caseworker were corroborated by the testimony of respondent's adult daughter, who disclosed that she too was sexually abused by respondent several times over the course of two years when she was Jacob's age (see e.g. Matter of J.D. [S.A.-M.A.], 196 A.D.3d 423, 423, 150 N.Y.S.3d 269 [1st Dept. 2021] ). The evidence also showed that respondent previously pleaded guilty to committing a sexual offense against another child (see id. at 424, 150 N.Y.S.3d 269 ). Contrary to respondent's contention, there is no indication in the videotaped interview that the child had been coached.
The determination that respondent derivatively abused Jovanty is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i] ; Matter of Nyrie W. [Paul M.], 111 A.D.3d 402, 403, 974 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2013] ).