Opinion
April 6, 2000.
Orders of disposition (three papers), Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about April 14, 1999, placing respondent-appellant's three children with the Administration of Children's Services (ACS) for up to 12 months upon a fact-finding determination by the same court (Susan Larabee, J.), that the child Patty F., was abused and her sister, Galeann F., was derivatively abused by appellant and upon an order of the same court (Allen Alpert, J.), granting the motion for summary judgment by ACS finding that an after-born child, Denise F., was derivatively abused, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Henry S. Weintraub, for the F. children.
Lester Kushner, for respondent-appellant.
George Gutwirth, for respondents.
ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, JJ.
Family Court's findings of abuse and derivative abuse are supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Court Act § 1046 Fam. Ct. Act[b]). The court's evaluation of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility is clearly supported by the record and will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Kathleen OO. 232 A.D.2d 784). In less than a two-month period of time, in two separate incidents, Patty F., who at the time was one-year old, suffered a single fracture to her wrist and a double fracture to her arm. The medical findings were that the injuries were of such a nature as would not ordinarily be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the person responsible for the care of the child. Appellant failed to sustain her burden to offer a satisfactory explanation for the child's injuries (see, Matter of Kevin R., 193 A.D.2d 351, 352, appeal dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 735). The court was justified in rejecting appellant's testimony, which was inconsistent and contradictory.
The weight of the credible evidence before the court at the dispositional hearing supported its determination that it was in the children's best interests to be placed with ACS for up to 12 months, and, in this connection, it was proper for the court to consider whether appellant continued to deny responsibility for the child's injuries (see, Matter of Tanya M., 207 A.D.2d 656).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.