Opinion
2013-04-26
In the Matter of ARIANNA M., Gauge M. and Dylan C. Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Brian M., Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V. Hunt, J.), entered February 21, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order determined that respondent had abused and neglected the subject children. Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for Respondent–Appellant. Caraccioli & Associates, PLLC, Watertown (Iris Yao of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V. Hunt, J.), entered February 21, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order determined that respondent had abused and neglected the subject children.
Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for Respondent–Appellant. Caraccioli & Associates, PLLC, Watertown (Iris Yao of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Lisa A. Proven, Attorney for the Children, Watertown, for Dylan C., Gauge M. and Arianna M.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition determining that he sexually abused and neglected two of his children and derivatively neglected another child. Contrary to the father's contention, the findings of abuse and neglect are supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Merrick T., 55 A.D.3d 1318, 1318, 866 N.Y.S.2d 839;Matter of Stephanie B., 245 A.D.2d 1062, 1062, 667 N.Y.S.2d 174). We accord great weight and deference to Family Court's determinations, “including its drawing of inferences and assessment of credibility,” and we will not disturb those determinations where, as here, they are supported by the record (Matter of Shaylee R., 13 A.D.3d 1106, 1106, 787 N.Y.S.2d 553). We agree with the father that the court erred in admitting in evidence the written report of a social worker who performs sexual abuse assessments because it contained prior consistent statements that bolstered her trial testimony ( see generally Aurnou v. Craig, 184 A.D.2d 1048, 1049, 584 N.Y.S.2d 249). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless inasmuch as it does not appear from the court's decision that the court relied on the report ( see Matter of Wise v. Burks, 61 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 876 N.Y.S.2d 730).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.