Majority
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about May 6, 2014, to the extent they bring up for review an order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 2, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that respondent-appellant had sexually abused the oldest subject child, his adoptive brother, and derivatively abused the two other subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the orders of disposition.
The findings of sexual abuse and derivative abuse were supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Dayanara V. [Carlos V.], 101 AD3d 411 , 412 [1st Dept 2012]). There is no basis to disturb Family Court’s credibility determinations crediting the testimony given by the oldest child and discrediting the testimony given by respondent (Dayanara, 101 AD3d at 412 ). The child’s testimony was competent evidence that respondent sexually abused him on about 20 occasions, “and the fact that [he] did not have a physical injury or that there was no corroboration of [his] testimony does not require a different result” (Matter of Jani Faith B. [Craig S.], 104 AD3d 508 , 509 [1st Dept 2013]). Family Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the scope of cross-examination on collateral matters related to the child’s credibility (People v Antonetty, 268 AD2d 254 , 254 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 945 [2000]).
Given the nature and severity of the abuse inflicted by respondent upon the oldest child, Family Court properly found derivative abuse as to the other children (Matter of Kaiyeem C. [Ndaka C.], 126 AD3d 528 , 529 [1st Dept 2015]). Concur— Acosta, J.R, Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Cases cited
- In re Dayanara V. 101 AD3d 411 at 412 p. 556
- People v. Antonetty 268 AD2d 254 at 254 p. 556
- In re Kaiyeem C. 126 AD3d 528 at 529 p. 556