Opinion
11-29-2016
In re NASSAIR S., and Others, Children under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Chareshma T., Respondent–Appellant, Administration of Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the children.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the children.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ.
Order of disposition, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review fact-finding orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 20, 2014, which found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the admissible evidence supports the court's finding that the mother neglected the subject children by leaving them with their grandmother, who agreed to care for them for just one day, and then failing to return for the next ten days, at which point the grandmother left the children in the hallway outside of another relative's home (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 A.D.3d 785, 939 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2d Dept. 2012] ; see also Matter of Charisma D. [Sandra R.], 115 A.D.3d 441, 981 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Victor V., 261 A.D.2d 479, 690 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2d Dept.1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 819, 697 N.Y.S.2d 566, 719 N.E.2d 927 [1999] ). The caseworker's testimony that the mother told her that she had not seen the children for those ten days, despite having asked the grandmother to watch them for one day, was admissible as an admission against interest of a party (see Matter of Jermaine J. [Howard J.], 121 A.D.3d 437, 438, 993 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1st Dept.2014] ). The mother made no offer of proof concerning the remainder of her statement to the caseworker, which she sought to elicit under the rule of completeness, so that the issue is not preserved for appeal (see People v. Berlin, 39 A.D.3d 351, 352–353, 835 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 840, 840 N.Y.S.2d 767, 872 N.E.2d 880 [2007] ). Based on the mother's failure to testify concerning the neglect allegations against herself, the court was entitled to draw the strongest inference against her that the opposing evidence permits (see Matter of Michael P. (Orthensia H.), 137 A.D.3d 499, 500, 27 N.Y.S.3d 123 [1st Dept.2016] ; Matter of Serenity P. [Shameka P.], 74 A.D.3d 1855, 902 N.Y.S.2d 741 [4th Dept.2010] ).