In re Crystal E.
This text of 200 A.D.2d 868 (In re Crystal E.) 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.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of [869]*869Fulton County (Jung, J.), entered September 8, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to revoke an order of supervision against respondent, and placed her children with petitioner for a period of one year.
Respondent contends that Family Court committed reversible error by failing to make the specific findings required by Family Court Act article 10 in revoking its prior order of supervision and ordering placement of her three children with petitioner. She further argues that the order of placement was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree and affirm.
On December 14, 1990, Family Court adjudicated respondent’s children, Crystal (born in 1986), Olivia (born in 1988) and Jolene (born in 1990), to be neglected children and made an order of supervision and trial discharge to respondent’s care imposing 10 specific terms and conditions upon her. She was required, inter alia, to refrain from striking the children about their heads, to provide them with adequate food, housing and clean clothing, to make certain they are washed daily, and to maintain the home in a clean and sanitary condition. In a petition dated April 3, 1992 and amended May 6, 1992, petitioner sought revocation of the order of supervision and removal of Olivia and Jolene, alleging that respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the prior order.
We find the evidence adduced from the several witnesses, including the physician who examined Olivia, the police officer who described conditions in the home, a relative of a neighbor who saw the injury to Olivia’s face, one of respondent’s friends who described the condition of the house and the homemaker assigned to the case, fully supports the conclusion reached. We agree that deference should be accorded Family Court’s resolution of the credibility issues raised by conflicting testimony (see, Matter of Danielle YY., 188 AD2d 894, 896, lv denied 81 NY2d 706; Matter of Lauren KK., 175 AD2d 393, 394). We further reject respondent’s contention that the order was technically defective and hold that such deficiencies, if any, were harmless in the context of this case (see, Matter of Rachel G., 185 AD2d 382, 383-384).
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
The oldest child, Crystal, had previously been adjudicated neglected in a December 14, 1990 order and placed in petitioner’s custody. On October 24, 1991, a Family Court order released Olivia and Jolene from petitioner’s temporary custody to respondent under petitioner’s supervision but retained custody of Crystal with petitioner until May 20, 1992.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
200 A.D.2d 868, 606 N.Y.S.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-crystal-e-nyappdiv-1994.