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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 2008·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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.

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

Pincite

47 A.D.3d 986 (In re Constance NN.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related