Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Gage, J.).
Ordered that the fact-finding order entered in the proceeding entitled Matter of Racielli C. (Docket No. N-4317/92), which found that Oneida Q. had neglected Racielli C., is reversed and so much of the petition as charged Oneida Q. with neglect is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the dispositional orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of the Family Court that the appellant father had sexually abused his daughter is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117). The petitioner presented a prima facie showing of abuse. The child's out of court statements to her mother, a physician, and a social worker, were sufficiently corroborated by, inter alia, her reenactment of the sexual abuse incident with dolls (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Services [Joanne W.] v Edyth W., 210 A.D.2d 328; see also, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Erika K.] v Steven K., 176 A.D.2d 326, 328). Additionally, the father failed to come forward with satisfactory evidence to rebut the petitioner's case (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Anna Marie A.] v Elena A., 194 A.D.2d 608). Therefore, where, as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Anna Marie A.] v Elena A., supra, at 609). On this record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court's resolution of this issue.
We find, however, that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant mother was guilty of neglect in connection with Racielli C. (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The record does not support a finding that the mother knew or should have known that her daughter was in imminent danger of being subject to sexual abuse (see, Matter of Jose Y., 177 A.D.2d 580; see also, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Anna Marie A.] v Elena A., 194 A.D.2d 608, supra).
We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.