In re Constance NN.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Constance NN.

47 A.D.3d 986, 849 N.Y.S.2d 328

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 986 (In re Constance NN.) 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 Constance NN., 47 A.D.3d 986, 849 N.Y.S.2d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), entered January 2, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent’s child to be abused.

Following a hearing, Family Court determined that respondent sexually abused his young daughter. On appeal, respondent advances only one argument, namely, that Family Court erred in admitting a certain videotape into evidence without a proper foundation and/or authentication. This issue, however, was not properly preserved by an appropriate objection and, thus, has been waived (see CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; Matter of Henry W., 30 AD3d 695, 696 [2006]; Matter of Antonia QQ., 1 AD3d 841, 842 [2003]; Matter of Karen BB., 216 AD2d 754, 756-757 [1995]; see also Matter of Diamond K, 31 AD3d 553 [2006]; Matter of “Baby Girl” Q., 14 AD3d 392, 393 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 704 [2005]; Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d 562, 563 [2004]). There being no other issue raised, we affirm Family Court’s order.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Carpinello J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), entered January 2, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent’s child to be abused.

Following a hearing, Family Court determined that respondent sexually abused his young daughter. On appeal, respondent advances only one argument, namely, that Family Court erred in admitting a certain videotape into evidence without a proper foundation and/or authentication. This issue, however, was not properly preserved by an appropriate objection and, thus, has been waived (see CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]; Matter of Henry W., 30 AD3d 695, 696 [2006]; Matter of Antonia QQ., 1 AD3d 841, 842 [2003]; Matter of Karen BB., 216 AD2d 754, 756-757 [1995]; see also Matter of Diamond K, 31 AD3d 553 [2006]; Matter of “Baby Girl” Q., 14 AD3d 392, 393 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 704 [2005]; Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d 562, 563 [2004]). There being no other issue raised, we affirm Family Court’s order.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 986, 849 N.Y.S.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-constance-nn-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack