Zarhianna K. Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v.

MEMORANDUM

John J. Raspante, Utica, for Respondent–Appellant.

Lisa P. Denman, Utica, for Petitioner–Respondent.

Paul Skavina, Attorney for the Child, Rome.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

In this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, respondent father appeals from an order

determining, inter alia, that he abused the subject child. Contrary to the father's contention, we conclude that Family Court's determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse by submitting evidence that the child sustained injuries that “would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of [the father], and ... that [the father was] the caretaker[ ] of the child at the time the injury occurred” (Matter of Philip M.,82 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168; see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][ii]), and the father failed to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the child's injuries (see

Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.],74 A.D.3d 1848, 1849, 902 N.Y.S.2d 739; Matter of Damien S.,45 A.D.3d 1384, 1384, 844 N.Y.S.2d 790, lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 701, 853 N.Y.S.2d 542, 883 N.E.2d 369).

The father contends that the order on appeal is ambiguous and does not clearly state whether there was a finding of abuse. We reject that contention. The order unambiguously states that the court determined that the subject child was “abused ... as defined in section 1012(e)(i) of the Family Court Actby [the father].” Contrary to the father's further contention, we conclude that the court's decision properly set forth the grounds for its determination (see Matter of Jose L.I.,46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025–1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059; Matter of Dezarae T. [Lee V.],110 A.D.3d 1396, 1399, 974 N.Y.S.2d 615).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.