In re Anthonya J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthonya J.

274 A.D.2d 482, 710 N.Y.S.2d 647

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 482 (In re Anthonya J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Anthonya J., 274 A.D.2d 482, 710 N.Y.S.2d 647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from three orders (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, J.), all dated October 12, 1999, which dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the petitions are reinstated, and the matter is remitted for a new determination following a new fact-finding hearing.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it failed to establish a prima facie case on its three petitions (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726; Nuzzo v Castellano, 254 AD2d 265). However, the matter should be remitted for new fact-finding hearings so that the medical records of the subject child Anthonya can be subpoenaed from SUNYDownstate Hospital (see, Family Ct Act §§ 153, 1048 [a]; Matter of T. Children, 123 AD2d 390; Matter of Dara R., 119 AD2d 579; Matter of Lahrick L., 118 AD2d 709). During the fact-finding hearing, Anthonya’s doctor testified that he had prescribed antibiotics for treating chlamydia after receiving test results from that hospital, and that he based his diagnosis of sexual abuse on medical records from that hospital. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Family Court to determine, at the least, if the alleged records existed. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from three orders (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, J.), all dated October 12, 1999, which dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the petitions are reinstated, and the matter is remitted for a new determination following a new fact-finding hearing.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it failed to establish a prima facie case on its three petitions (see, Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726; Nuzzo v Castellano, 254 AD2d 265). However, the matter should be remitted for new fact-finding hearings so that the medical records of the subject child Anthonya can be subpoenaed from SUNYDownstate Hospital (see, Family Ct Act §§ 153, 1048 [a]; Matter of T. Children, 123 AD2d 390; Matter of Dara R., 119 AD2d 579; Matter of Lahrick L., 118 AD2d 709). During the fact-finding hearing, Anthonya’s doctor testified that he had prescribed antibiotics for treating chlamydia after receiving test results from that hospital, and that he based his diagnosis of sexual abuse on medical records from that hospital. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Family Court to determine, at the least, if the alleged records existed. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 482, 710 N.Y.S.2d 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthonya-j-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack