In re Dave D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dave D.

71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 673 (In re Dave D.) 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 Dave D., 71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Ruiz, J.), dated March 3, 2009, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he had sexually abused the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Based upon our review of the record and deferring to the Family Court’s resolution of questions of credibility (see Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]; Matter of Liza O., 47 AD3d 632 [2008]), we conclude that the Family Court’s determination that the father sexually abused the child is sup[674]*674ported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the child’s out-of-court statements were reliably corroborated by the father’s admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849, 850 [2005]; Matter of James A., 217 AD2d 961 [1995]; Matter of Margaret W., 83 AD2d 557 [1981]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Ruiz, J.), dated March 3, 2009, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he had sexually abused the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Based upon our review of the record and deferring to the Family Court’s resolution of questions of credibility (see Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]; Matter of Liza O., 47 AD3d 632 [2008]), we conclude that the Family Court’s determination that the father sexually abused the child is sup[674]*674ported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922 [2009]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the child’s out-of-court statements were reliably corroborated by the father’s admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849, 850 [2005]; Matter of James A., 217 AD2d 961 [1995]; Matter of Margaret W., 83 AD2d 557 [1981]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 673, 894 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dave-d-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack