Opinion
2013-12-24
In re FRANCINI C., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Yasmin P., Respondent–Appellant, v. New York City Administration Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, CLARK, JJ.
Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother abused the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's determination that respondent abused her daughter (Family Court Act § 1046[b][i] ). The child's out-of-court statements that her mother hit and choked her with a belt were corroborated by the medical records and the testimony of an expert in pediatric medicine, who, after evaluating the child and reviewing her medical records, concluded that she had been abused ( see Matter of Alexis Marie P., 45 A.D.3d 458, 846 N.Y.S.2d 149 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 705, 857 N.Y.S.2d 37, 886 N.E.2d 802 [2008] ). The child's statements were further corroborated by the caseworker's testimony as to marks on the child ( see Matter of Maria Raquel L., 36 A.D.3d 425, 826 N.Y.S.2d 252 [1st Dept.2007] ).
There is no basis to disturb the court's determination to discredit respondent's explanation of her daughter's injuries. Respondent's account was not corroborated by the evidence and was inconsistent with the findings set forth in the child's medical records ( see Matter of Jared S. [Monet S.], 78 A.D.3d 536, 911 N.Y.S.2d 339 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 705, 919 N.Y.S.2d 511, 944 N.E.2d 1151 [2011] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.