In re Cleo K-H.

172 A.D.2d 524
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 1, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 524 (In re Cleo K-H.) 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 Cleo K-H., 172 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

In a child abuse proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sparrow, J.), entered October 12, 1988, which, after a hearing, inter alia, extended placement of the child with the New York City Department of Social Services for 18 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, entered June 23, 1988, which, after a hearing, found that the subject child was abused by the appellant mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination by the Family Court that the appellant mother had sexually and physically abused her daughter, the subject of this proceeding, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1). A review of the record establishes that the petitioner presented a prima facie showing of abuse. The child’s out-of-court statements to her foster mother, to a clinical social worker, and to a caseworker, were sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence (see, Matter of Jesse S., 152 AD2d 581; Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). Where, as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight (see, Matter of Sheila L., 141 AD2d 730, 731). On this record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s disposition of the issues (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 778; Matter of Sheila L., supra, at 731). [525]*525Moreover, the appellant’s claims with respect to the manner in which the hearing was conducted and several of the evidentiary rulings and statements by the Family Court are either without basis in fact or lacking in merit. Brown, J. P., Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Taurice M. (Gregory A.)
2017 NY Slip Op 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
New York City Department of Social Services ex rel. Anna Marie A. v. Elena A.
194 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re William S.
193 A.D.2d 1112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Danielle YY.
188 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re Skye B.
185 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re Scott X.
184 A.D.2d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re Katrina W.
171 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cleo-k-h-nyappdiv-1991.