Opinion
02-13-2024
In the Matter of ONEALYAH M., Petitioner-Appellant, v. MICHAEL G.E., Respondent-Respondent.
Rhea G. Friedman, New York, for appellant.
Rhea G. Friedman, New York, for appellant.
Webber, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Rosado, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that petitioner was not entitled to restitution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of demonstrating entitlement to restitution by offering any competent evidence that her eye condition was caused by the respondent’s conduct between 2012 and 2014, that treatment was required and the cost thereof (compare Matter of Victoria C. v. Higinio C., 1 A.D.3d 173, 174, 766 N.Y.S.2d 563 [1st Dept. 2003]; see Family Court Act § 834). Petitioner waived any complaint about the manner in which the hearing was conducted by willingly participating in the hearing without objection (see Matter of Tonya B. v. Matthew B., 90 A.D.3d 463, 463–464, 933 N.Y.S.2d 864 [1st Dept. 2011]).