In re Autumn P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Autumn P.

93 A.D.3d 457, 939 N.Y.S.2d 700

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 457 (In re Autumn P.) 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 Autumn P., 93 A.D.3d 457, 939 N.Y.S.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2011, which, inter alia, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father neglected and abused the subject child, placed the child in the custody and guardianship of the Commissioner of Social Services until completion of the next scheduled permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The findings that the father neglected and abused his daughter were supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [e], [fj; § 1046 [b] [i]). The medical evidence showed that the six-month old infant had sustained three leg fractures, a subdural hematoma and a cut to her mouth. The parents offered no explanation for the majority of the injuries. Petitioner demonstrated that the child’s pattern of serious and unexplained injuries would ordinarily not occur absent acts or omissions of the parents, and that the father was the child’s primary caretaker when the injuries occurred (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1993]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Román, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2011, which, inter alia, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father neglected and abused the subject child, placed the child in the custody and guardianship of the Commissioner of Social Services until completion of the next scheduled permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The findings that the father neglected and abused his daughter were supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [e], [fj; § 1046 [b] [i]). The medical evidence showed that the six-month old infant had sustained three leg fractures, a subdural hematoma and a cut to her mouth. The parents offered no explanation for the majority of the injuries. Petitioner demonstrated that the child’s pattern of serious and unexplained injuries would ordinarily not occur absent acts or omissions of the parents, and that the father was the child’s primary caretaker when the injuries occurred (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1993]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 457, 939 N.Y.S.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-autumn-p-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack