In re Chaim T.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Apr 2, 2014
983 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
983 N.Y.S.2d 571116 A.D.3d 7042014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2301

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • In re Chaim T.

    ….OpinionReported below, 116 A.D.3d 704, 983 N.Y.S.2d 571.Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

2014-04-2

In the Matter of CHAIM T. (Anonymous). New York City Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Joshua T. (Anonymous), appellant; Annette T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Tziporah T. (Anonymous). New York City Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Joshua T. (Anonymous), appellant; Annette T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Yehuda T. (Anonymous). New York City Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Joshua T. (Anonymous), appellant; Annette T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 3).

Daniel P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth I. Freedman and Hanh H. Le of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.



Daniel P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth I. Freedman and Hanh H. Le of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent-respondent.
Barbara J. Caravello, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child Chaim T.
Jennifer Hersh, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child Tziporah T.
Eric Perlmutter, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child Yehuda T.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.


In three related child abuse and neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated January 5, 2012, as, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused the children Chaim T. and Tziporah T., and derivatively neglected the child Yehuda T., and (2) so much of an order of disposition of the same court dated December 12, 2012, as, upon the order of fact-finding, and after a dispositional hearing, directed that he complete a sex offenders' program and permitted him to have only supervised visitation with the subject children.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the father sexually abused the children Chaim T. and Tziporah T., and derivatively neglected the child Yehuda T. ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;Matter of Angelica M. [Nugene A.], 107 A.D.3d 803, 804–805, 967 N.Y.S.2d 740;Matter of Leah R. [Miguel R.], 104 A.D.3d 774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 249; Matter of Daniel W., 37 A.D.3d 842, 843, 831 N.Y.S.2d 244;Matter of Sylvia J., 23 A.D.3d 560, 562, 804 N.Y.S.2d 783;Matter of Shavar B., 7 A.D.3d 619, 620, 776 N.Y.S.2d 503). The out-of-court statements of Chaim T. and Tziporah T. were sufficiently corroborated by evidence of adverse changes in Chaim T.'s behavior and by the father's admissions that he physically “arranged” Chaim T.'s penis allegedly to make the child feel more comfortable and examined Tziporah T.'s vagina ( see Matter of Amerriah S. [Kadiatou Y.], 100 A.D.3d 1006, 955 N.Y.S.2d 147;Matter of Dave D. [Jean D.], 71 A.D.3d 673, 674, 894 N.Y.S.2d 894;Matter of Liza O., 47 A.D.3d 632, 849 N.Y.S.2d 594). Contrary to the father's contention, the element of intent to obtain sexual gratification could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances ( see Matter of Raymond M., 13 A.D.3d 377, 378, 786 N.Y.S.2d 94;Matter of Kryzstof K., 283 A.D.2d 431, 432, 723 N.Y.S.2d 888).

The father's remaining contention is without merit.