Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for Respondent–Appellant. Nelson Law Firm, Mexico (Allison J. Nelson Of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
John G. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica.
Theodore W. Stenuf, Attorney for the Child, Minoa.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: Respondent-appellant (respondent) appeals from an order of fact-finding determining that he sexually abused his two stepdaughters. Contrary to respondent's contention, Family Court's findings of sexual abuse are supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Teonia B., 37 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 831 N.Y.S.2d 301). “We accord great weight and deference to [the c]ourt's determinations, ‘including its drawing of inferences and assessment of credibility,’ and we will not disturb those determinations where, as here, they are supported by the record” (Matter of Arianna M. [Brian M.], 105 A.D.3d 1401, 1401, 963 N.Y.S.2d 895,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 862, 2013 WL 4516332 [Aug. 27, 2013]; see Matter of Peter C., 278 A.D.2d 911, 911, 718 N.Y.S.2d 551;see generally Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337).
Respondent further contends that the court abused its discretion in excluding him from the courtroom during his stepdaughters' testimony. We reject that contention. “The court properly balanced the respective interests of the parties and, based upon the hearing testimony, reasonably concluded that the [stepdaughters] would suffer substantial emotional trauma if [they] were compelled to testify in open court” (Matter of Lynelle W., 177 A.D.2d 1008, 1009, 578 N.Y.S.2d 313;see Matter of Q.-L.H., 27 A.D.3d 738, 739, 815 N.Y.S.2d 601). Moreover, the court properly based its decision to exclude respondent from the courtroom “on the social worker's affidavit that respondent's abuse of the child[ren] compromised [their] ability to give clear and accurate testimony in respondent's presence” (Matter of Hadja B., 302 A.D.2d 226, 226, 753 N.Y.S.2d 721;see Matter of Moona C. [Charlotte K.], 107 A.D.3d 466, 467, 967 N.Y.S.2d 54).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.