Opinion
May 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.
While the evidence offered by respondent in support of its claim that petitioners' son resided with them in violation of a permanent order of exclusion was hardly compelling, consisting as it did only of the son's unverified, hearsay statement to respondent's police officers, it was nevertheless sufficient to require petitioners to come forward with some evidence that their son in fact resided elsewhere. Petitioners, however, offered nothing but blanket denials found unworthy of belief by the Hearing Officer. That credibility determination will not be second guessed by this court (see, Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio, 180 A.D.2d 590; Matter of David v. Christian, 134 A.D.2d 349). We also reject petitioners' claim that the penalty of termination was excessive.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.