Scott M. v. Comm'r of Soc. Servs. of N.Y. (In re Sade B.)

Full title: In re SADE B., And Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 21, 2013

103 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

960 N.Y.S.2d 85

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1148

Opinion

2013-02-21

In re SADE B., And Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Scott M., Respondent–Appellant, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner–Respondent.

Susan Jacobs, The Center for Family Representation, New York (Emily S. Wall of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.

TOM

Susan Jacobs, The Center for Family Representation, New York (Emily S. Wall of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the Children.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, GISCHE, JJ.

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2011, which determined, after a fact-finding hearing, that respondent-appellant had abused Ashanti C., a child for whom he was legally responsible, and derivatively neglected Sade B. and Sapphire B., his biological children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The findings that respondent abused Ashanti, which were the only findings challenged, were supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038 [1985] ). The court properly found that Ashanti's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by both her sister's out-of-court statements to the caseworker and her mother's testimony ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914 [1987] ). There is no reason to disturb the court's evaluation of the evidence, including its credibility determinations, as the findings were clearly supported by the record ( see Matter of Ilene M., 19 A.D.3d 106, 106, 796 N.Y.S.2d 87 [1st Dept. 2005] ).

As the preponderance of the evidence supported the findings, the court's improper admission of largely irrelevant evidence relating to respondent's character, and improper denial of respondent's motion to obtain Ashanti's school records, constitutes harmless error.