Opinion
August 17, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly permitted the seven-year-old complainant to be sworn as a witness (see, CPL 60.20). A trial court's determination with respect to a witness's competency will not be disturbed upon review unless it was clearly erroneous (see, Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 525; see also, People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560; People v. Schultz, 168 A.D.2d 468).
We find that the court's preliminary examination of the complainant was adequate to determine that she understood the nature of testifying under oath and was competent to be sworn as a witness (see, CPL 60.20; People v. Nisoff, supra; People v. Boyd, 122 A.D.2d 273, 275). When asked if she knew "what it means for something to be true," the complainant answered "That means to tell the truth and God will not punish you". When told an obvious lie by the court, the complainant responded "That's not true". In addition, when viewed as a whole, the voir dire examination demonstrates that the complainant understood the moral and legal consequences of giving false testimony.
Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the complainant understood the gravity of an oath and, accordingly, she was properly sworn as a witness (see, People v Hardie, 144 A.D.2d 484).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.