Summary
In Matter of Brandon M. (Luis M.), 94 AD3d 520 (1st Dept 2012), the court made derivative findings when one of the subject children witnessed the sexual abuse and the other child was present in the apartment at the time the abuse took place.
Summary of this case from In re SFOpinion
2012-04-12
In re BRANDON M., and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,Luis M. Respondent–Appellant,Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent. Assigned Counsel for the Children, New York (Tennille M. Tatum–Evans of counsel), attorney for the children.MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, DeGRASSE, MAZANET–DANIELS, ROMÁN, JJ.
Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2011, which directed respondent father to stay away from and not communicate with the subject children, except for agency-supervised visits if requested by the children, until March 6, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot ( see Matter of Diallo v. Diallo, 68 A.D.3d 411, 888 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2009], lv. dismissed 14 N.Y.3d 854, 901 N.Y.S.2d 135, 927 N.E.2d 556 [2010] ).
Contrary to respondent's contentions, the order of disposition is not properly before this Court since the notice of appeal makes no reference to that order and only attached the order of protection ( see CPLR 5515(1); Matter of Peter GG., 36 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 828 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2007] ).
Were we to reach the merits, we would find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that respondent sexually abused his stepgranddaughter (Family Ct. Act § 1012[e][iii]; § 1046[b][i] ). The stepgranddaughter's out-of-court statements to the social worker and in medical records were admitted without objection in the joint proceedings against respondent and the girl's parents. These statements sufficiently corroborated the out-of-court statement of one of the subject children that he saw respondent with his hand down the front of his stepgranddaughter's pants, while respondent's pants were open ( see Matter of Anahys V. [John V.], 68 A.D.3d 485, 486, 891 N.Y.S.2d 34 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 1190455 [2010] ).
The derivative finding that respondent abused and neglected his biological children based on the finding that he sexually abused his stepgrandchild is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046 [a][i] ). One of the subject children witnessed the sexual abuse and the other child was present in the apartment at the time the abuse took place. Respondent's actions demonstrated that he has a fundamental defect in his understanding of his parental obligations ( see Matter of Marino S., 100 N.Y.2d 361, 373–375, 763 N.Y.S.2d 796, 795 N.E.2d 21 [2003] ).
Contrary to respondent's contention, the court was entitled to draw a negative inference against him based on his failure to testify in the proceedings ( see Matter of Dashawn W. [Antoine N.], 73 A.D.3d 574, 575, 902 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2010], lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 767, 919 N.Y.S.2d 116, 944 N.E.2d 653 [2011] ).