In re Ezekiel C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ezekiel C.

39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 398 (In re Ezekiel C.) 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 Ezekiel C., 39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about December 16, 2003, which found, after a hearing, that child Ezekiel was neglected by his respondent parents, and child Angel was derivatively neglected by his respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

These findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent-appellant father neglected Ezekiel within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B) (Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240 [1989]; see also Matter of Jennifer V., 267 AD2d 41 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 754 [2000]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s findings, based on the credibility of witnesses, relating to the degree of corporal punishment inflicted (see Matter of Todd D., 9 AD3d 462 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about December 16, 2003, which found, after a hearing, that child Ezekiel was neglected by his respondent parents, and child Angel was derivatively neglected by his respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

These findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent-appellant father neglected Ezekiel within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B) (Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240 [1989]; see also Matter of Jennifer V., 267 AD2d 41 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 754 [2000]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s findings, based on the credibility of witnesses, relating to the degree of corporal punishment inflicted (see Matter of Todd D., 9 AD3d 462 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ezekiel-c-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack