In re Elizabeth P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Elizabeth P.

220 A.D.2d 511, 632 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 511 (In re Elizabeth P.) 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 Elizabeth P., 220 A.D.2d 511, 632 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an [512]*512order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered March 21, 1994, as was predicated upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 10, 1994, which, after a hearing, found that he had sexually abused Elizabeth P.

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

The determination by the Family Court that the petitioner met its burden of proof is entitled to great deference by this Court (see, Matter of Frank T., 215 AD2d 562). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the testimony of the child sexual abuse expert properly corroborated the child’s hearsay statements (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, 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 appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an [512]*512order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered March 21, 1994, as was predicated upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 10, 1994, which, after a hearing, found that he had sexually abused Elizabeth P.

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

The determination by the Family Court that the petitioner met its burden of proof is entitled to great deference by this Court (see, Matter of Frank T., 215 AD2d 562). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the testimony of the child sexual abuse expert properly corroborated the child’s hearsay statements (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 511, 632 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elizabeth-p-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack