Another factor that courts have recognized as being supportive of a child's credibility and corroborative of out-of-court testimony is the consistency of a child's different out-of-court statements. See Matter of Kyle D., 138 AD3d 835 (2nd Dept. 2016) (consistency of out-of-court statements); Keisha McL., 261 AD2d at 342 (consistent repetitions to different people); Matter of Pearl M., 44 AD3d 348, 349 (1st Dept. 2007) (consistency of statements over time); Imani G., 130 AD3d (1st Dept. 2015) (medical records contained "the child's similar account of the sexual abuse"); Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213 (1st Dept. 1995) ("the consistent repetition of the facts . . . by children of such a tender age, over a period of time, to a number of different individuals"). In addition, a variety of types of expert testimony, opinion, and analysis have been found to be sufficient corroboration of a child's out-of-court statements.
Decided September 12, 1995 Appeal from (1st Dept: 215 A.D.2d 213) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED
The daughter's out-of-court statements were corroborated by a child sexual abuse expert, who, after evaluating the child over several sessions, concluded that she had been abused. Such corroboration included assessing the child's demeanor and language and the consistency of her statements over time, as well the child's demonstrations of the father's actions with an anatomically correct doll ( Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875, cert denied 516 US 1093 [1996]; Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213, lv denied 86 NY2d 706). Contrary to the father's contentions, he received adequate notice of the charges against him and his counsel was not curtailed during the cross-examination of petitioner's key witness. We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.). The finding that respondent allowed a sex offense to be committed against the child is supported by the child's unexplained vaginal and anal herpes (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; § 1046 Fam. Ct. Act [a] [ii]; Matter of J.S., 215 A.D.2d 213, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 706; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dawn B.], 185 A.D.2d 340). Respondent was properly precluded from cross-examining petitioner's expert witness with respect to the contents of a manual that the witness did not accept as authoritative (see, Ithier v. Solomon, 59 A.D.2d 935; Kaplan v. International Paint, 250 A.D.2d 817). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
ng therefrom the words "until age 21" and substituting therefor the words "until age 18"; as so modified, that order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The determination by the Family Court that the appellant father had sexually abused Victoria H. and Danielle H. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1). The children's out-of-court statements corroborated each other ( see, Matter of Francis Charles W., Jr., 71 N.Y.2d 112; Matter of Latisha W., 221 A.D.2d 645). Their statements were further corroborated by, inter alia, Victoria's reenactment of the sexual abuse incidents with anatomically correct dolls ( see, Matter of Linda P. v. Thomas P., 240 A.D.2d 583; Matter of Ashley M., 235 A.D.2d 858; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Laura C.], 232 A.D.2d 635; Matter of Josephine G., 218 A.D.2d 656), testimony that both girls had age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters ( see, Matter of J.S., 215 A.D.2d 213; Matter of Erick R., 166 A.D.2d 161), and testimony that both girls had engaged in behavior typical of abused children ( see, Matter of Linda P. v. Thomas P., supra). The abuse of Danielle H. was also corroborated by medical evidence.
In addition, there was nonhearsay testimony that the victim engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior. In our view, this testimony provided ample corroboration for the victim's out-of-court statements ( see, Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875, 878, cert denied sub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. 516 US 1093; Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213, 214, lv denied 86 NY2d 706; Matter of Racielli C, 215 AD2d 477, 478). We further note that respondent's failure to testify allowed Family Court to draw the strongest inferences against him as the opposing evidence permitted ( see, Matter ofNassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79; Matter of Tami G., 209 AD2d 869, 870, lv denied 85 NY2d 804). Accordingly, for these reasons, we conclude that Family Court's finding that respondent abused his daughter was supported by sufficient evidence.