In re Domynque F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Domynque F.

62 A.D.3d 697, 877 N.Y.S.2d 694

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 697 (In re Domynque F.) 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 Domynque F., 62 A.D.3d 697, 877 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.), dated March 21, 2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions, and the attorney for the child Domynyque F., named here as Domynque F, separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much the same order as dismissed the petition asserted on that child’s behalf.

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

[698]*698Family Court Act § 1046 (b) (i) requires a finding of abuse or neglect of a child to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Lorenzo M., 239 AD2d 498, 498 [1997]). Deference should be accorded to the Family Court’s assessments of the credibility of witnesses, although an appellate court is free to make its own credibility assessments. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the Family Court’s findings were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.), dated March 21, 2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions, and the attorney for the child Domynyque F., named here as Domynque F, separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much the same order as dismissed the petition asserted on that child’s behalf.

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

[698]*698Family Court Act § 1046 (b) (i) requires a finding of abuse or neglect of a child to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243-244 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Lorenzo M., 239 AD2d 498, 498 [1997]). Deference should be accorded to the Family Court’s assessments of the credibility of witnesses, although an appellate court is free to make its own credibility assessments. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the Family Court’s findings were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 697, 877 N.Y.S.2d 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-domynque-f-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack