Opinion
December 14, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Torres, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant is the paramour of the mother of the children involved in the instant proceeding. He contends that the Family Court committed error in finding that he was a person "legally responsible" for the care of the subject children within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (g). We disagree. The appellant was a regular member of the children's household at all relevant times and was thus a "legally responsible" person under Family Court Act article 10 (see, Matter of Faith AA., 139 A.D.2d 22, 24; cf., Matter of Faith GG., 179 A.D.2d 901, 902; Matter of Jack M., 181 A.D.2d 631; Matter of Marcelina F., 117 A.D.2d 803). The evidence established, inter alia, that the appellant shared a bed with the children's mother as well as her daughters, Stacy and Shevonne. Moreover, the children's consistent reference to the appellant as their "daddy" or "father" indicates that he was, for a time, a constant and integral force in their lives.
Furthermore, Stacy's out-of-court allegations concerning sexual abuse committed by the appellant were properly corroborated by expert medical testimony disclosing, inter alia, physical symptoms of abuse (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120; Matter of Tara H., 129 Misc.2d 508, 514). While the validator was unable to make a conclusive finding of sexual abuse, she nevertheless believed it highly probable that some form of sexual interaction between Stacy and the appellant had occurred (see, e.g., Matter of Latisha V., 175 A.D.2d 839).
Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; see also, Matter of Joey T., 185 A.D.2d 851; Matter of Dennis N., 110 A.D.2d 703). The determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88; Matter of Joey T., supra; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). In the present matter, the fact-finding court found the petitioner's witnesses to be "open, frank, direct and credible". In contrast, the court gave little credence to the appellant's testimony or his mother's testimony, and indicated that their statements appeared to be tailored to meet the allegations against him. Under these circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination. We are satisfied that the finding of abuse was supported by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b]; Matter of Joey T., supra).
We find no merit to the appellant's remaining contentions. Lawrence, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.