In re Frantrae W.

45 A.D.3d 412, 845 N.Y.S.2d 324
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 412 (In re Frantrae W.) 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 Frantrae W., 45 A.D.3d 412, 845 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), [413]*413entered on or about January 24, 2006, which found respondent father to have neglected and abused the children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the serious nature of the charges, the Family Court’s credibility determinations, based on sharply divergent testimony, are entitled to deference (see Matter of Benjamin L., 9 AD3d 153, 155 [2004]). The record supports the court’s findings that appellant abused his older daughter by having sexual intercourse with her in 2003 and 2004. His argument that the older daughter’s testimony was received without corroboration is not apt, since the court did not rely exclusively on her out-of-court testimony (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). In any event, the older daughter’s testimony was corroborated by that of a treating social worker, and in certain details by respondent stepmother. The record also supports the court’s findings that appellant inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the older daughter.

The older daughter’s recantation did not invalidate her original testimony outright (see Matter of Richard SS., 29 AD3d 1118, 1123 [2005]). At most, it raised credibility questions as to her testimony (see Matter of Kayla N, 41 AD3d 920, 922-923 [2007]), and the record supports the Family Court’s resolution of those questions against crediting the recantation or disregarding the original testimony, based on findings that were made after the court carefully evaluated the child’s sworn testimony (see Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417 [2005]). Appellant’s arguments as to the court’s evidentiary rulings are without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Damaris D. (Durven D.--Stephanie D.)
2019 NY Slip Op 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Elie W., Jr. (Elie W., Sr.)
2018 NY Slip Op 7668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Ivahly M. (Jennifer L.)
2018 NY Slip Op 1406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
In re Essence S.
94 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Shayna R.
57 A.D.3d 262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 412, 845 N.Y.S.2d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-frantrae-w-nyappdiv-2007.