In re Amber B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Amber B.

39 A.D.3d 743, 832 N.Y.S.2d 449

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 17, 2007·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding and related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Kenneth E. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered June 13, 2005, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he had sexually abused the child Amber B.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s finding that the appellant sexually abused [744]*744the child Amber B. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Sanjeeda M., 24 AD3d 445 [2005]; Matter of Shavar B., 7 AD3d 619, 620 [2004]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, Amber B.’s out-of-court statements were corroborated by several sources, including the validating testimony of the child abuse expert and the testimony of a Department of Social Services caseworker (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117-119 [1987]; Matter of Sanjeeda M., supra; Matter of Shavar B., supra). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child protective proceeding and related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Kenneth E. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered June 13, 2005, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he had sexually abused the child Amber B.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s finding that the appellant sexually abused [744]*744the child Amber B. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Sanjeeda M., 24 AD3d 445 [2005]; Matter of Shavar B., 7 AD3d 619, 620 [2004]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, Amber B.’s out-of-court statements were corroborated by several sources, including the validating testimony of the child abuse expert and the testimony of a Department of Social Services caseworker (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117-119 [1987]; Matter of Sanjeeda M., supra; Matter of Shavar B., supra). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

In re Amber B., 39 A.D.3d 743, 832 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

39 A.D.3d 743 (In re Amber B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related