There is no basis to disturb the Referee's determination that their testimony, and the testimony of the children's maternal great aunt concerning an incident that she observed four years earlier, was not credible (see e.g. Matter of Sarah McL. v. Clarence L., 111 A.D.3d 446, 974 N.Y.S.2d 778 [1st Dept.2013] ).The Referee providently determined that it would not consider statements made by the children during in camera interviews, at which the parties and their counsel were not present, in this article 8 proceeding, because the parties' due process rights would be compromised (see Matter of Dorene L. v. Dhaneswar R., 29 Misc.3d 462, 464–465, 906 N.Y.S.2d 871 [Family Ct., Bronx County 2010], affd. 89 A.D.3d 428, 931 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1st Dept.2011] ).MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, JJ., concur.

There is no basis to disturb the Referee's determination that their testimony, and the testimony of the children's maternal great aunt concerning an incident that she observed four years earlier, was not credible (see e.g. Matter of Sarah McL. v Clarence L., 111 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2013]). The Referee providently determined that it would not consider statements made by the children during in camera interviews, at which the parties and their counsel were not present, in this article 8 proceeding, because the parties' due process rights would be compromised (see Matter of Doreen L. v Dhaneswar R., 29 Misc 3d 462, 464-465 [Family Ct, Bronx County 2010], affd 89 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2011]). M-5634 - Joyesha J. v Oscar S.

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition consisted solely of inadmissible hearsay. The petitioner therefore failed to establish the allegations in the petition by competent evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 834; Matter of Belinda YY. v. Lee ZZ., 74 A.D.3d at 1395, 903 N.Y.S.2d 568; Dorene L. v. Dhaneswar R., 29 Misc.3d 462, 906 N.Y.S.2d 871, affd. 89 A.D.3d 428, 931 N.Y.S.2d 862). Accordingly, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.

In the end, the Court in Justin CC. came up with the solution of a so-called "modified Lincoln" hearing, in which "a child provides testimony during the fact-finding stage of a Family Ct. Act Article 10 proceeding, outside the presence of the respondent but with all counsel present and afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine the child" (id at 211). Justin CC. has been widely followed (see e.g. Matter of Julie E. v David E., 124 AD3d 934, 937-38 [3d Dept 2015]; Matter of Sandra S. v Abdul S., 30 Misc 3d 797, 803 [Fam Ct 2010]; Dorene L. v Dhaneswar R., 29 Misc 3d 462, 464-65 [Fam Ct 2010], affd sub nom. Doreen L. v Dhaneswar R., 89 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2011] [modified Lincoln hearing used in Article 8 Family Offense proceeding]).