In re Eugene L.

83 A.D.3d 490, 921 N.Y.S.2d 61
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 490 (In re Eugene L.) 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 Eugene L., 83 A.D.3d 490, 921 N.Y.S.2d 61 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding that respondents neglected their child, placed the child in petitioner’s custody pending the completion of the next scheduled permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). Undisputed evidence established that police officers, acting under a warrant, recovered a large quantity of cocaine (IV2 ounces), empty ziplock bags and $1,451 from respondents’ residence while respondents’ three-month-old child was present.

The officer who testified also stated that two undercover buys had taken place in the apartment before the search. Although that testimony is hearsay, neither respondent objected to it and the statement was elicited on cross-examination. In view of this additional testimony, and, drawing the strongest inference the opposing evidence permits against respondents on account of their failure to testify (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]), we conclude that either both respondents engaged in the sale of cocaine in the apartment or one of them did with the knowledge of the other. Thus, the evidence demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to permit the requisite finding of an imminent danger to the three-month-old child’s physical, mental or emotional condition (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Andrew DeJ. R., 30 AD3d 238 [2006]; Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Eliani M.-R. (Sonia M.)
2019 NY Slip Op 4274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of David R. (Carmen R.)
123 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Brad I.
117 A.D.3d 1242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Jocelyn L.
113 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Jamie V.
110 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Sarah A.
109 A.D.3d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Jeni L.W. F.
107 A.D.3d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Mia B.
100 A.D.3d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Khaliyah Vjelytt W.-D.
99 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Jared M.
99 A.D.3d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A.D.3d 490, 921 N.Y.S.2d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eugene-l-nyappdiv-2011.