In re Diamond K.

31 A.D.3d 553, 817 N.Y.S.2d 681
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 553 (In re Diamond K.) 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 Diamond K., 31 A.D.3d 553, 817 N.Y.S.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In six related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J.), dated April 6, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that she abused the deceased child Dasheem J., and derivatively abused the subject children.

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

The mother did not object to the procedure employed by the Family Court for the admission of certain medical articles into evidence. Thus, her contention with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPLR 5501 [a] [3]; Matter of Pennino, 289 AD2d 248 [2001]).

The Family Court’s determination that Dasheem J. was an abused child was supported by the record (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [e]; Matter of Anesia E., 23 AD3d 465 [2005]; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Ellen S.], 215 AD2d 395 [554]*554[1995]). The Family Court’s assessment of the conflicting expert testimony is entitled to deference, and we decline to disturb its determination where, as here, it is clearly supported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Aminat O., 20 AD3d 480 [2005]; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Ellen S.], supra).

The mother’s actions demonstrated a fundamental defect in her understanding of the duties of parenthood and created a substantial risk that her other children would be subject to the same abuse. Therefore, the findings that the surviving children were derivatively abused were properly made (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [ii]; Matter of Nicole G., 274 AD2d 478 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Prince G. (Liz C.--Patrick G.)
2020 NY Slip Op 06389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Clifford S. (Chevon G.)
2017 NY Slip Op 2430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Davion E. (Latoya E.)
139 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Marchella P. (Loretta B.-B.)
137 A.D.3d 1286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Maria S. (Angelo S.)
135 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
H., BURKE, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re Burke H.
117 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Robert A.
109 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
M., KENNEDIE, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
In re Kennedie M.
89 A.D.3d 1544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Yamillette G.
74 A.D.3d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Jelani B.
54 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Constance NN.
47 A.D.3d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Allison B.
41 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re of Amber C.
38 A.D.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.3d 553, 817 N.Y.S.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-diamond-k-nyappdiv-2006.