In re Eckert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eckert

131 A.D.2d 569, 516 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48024

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

DecidedJune 8, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.2d 569 (In re Eckert) 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 Eckert, 131 A.D.2d 569, 516 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child abuse proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated July 23, 1986, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

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

In this child abuse proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the trial court erroneously applied a "clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof instead of the proper "preponderance of the evidence” standard (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1). Nevertheless, upon reviewing the record on appeal and applying the correct standard of proof to the facts, as we may properly do [570]*570(see, Matter of Michael B., 58 NY2d 71), we find that the evidence warrants dismissal of the petition since child abuse was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a child abuse proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated July 23, 1986, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

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

In this child abuse proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the trial court erroneously applied a "clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof instead of the proper "preponderance of the evidence” standard (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1). Nevertheless, upon reviewing the record on appeal and applying the correct standard of proof to the facts, as we may properly do [570]*570(see, Matter of Michael B., 58 NY2d 71), we find that the evidence warrants dismissal of the petition since child abuse was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 569, 516 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eckert-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack