In re Jallah J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jallah J.

118 A.D.3d 1000, 989 N.Y.S.2d 91

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

DecidedJune 25, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1000 (In re Jallah J.) 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 Jallah J., 118 A.D.3d 1000, 989 N.Y.S.2d 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[1001]*1001In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, George J. appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 29, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the child Taheen J. and derivatively neglected the children Jallah J. and Tah-Asia J.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, any finding that a child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313, 1313 [2012]). Neglect may be established by even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Joseph O’D. [Denise O’D.], 102 AD3d 874, 875 [2013]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d at 1313; Matter of Padmine M. [Sandra M.], 84 AD3d 806, 807 [2011]). The Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d at 1313).

Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect with respect to the child Taheen J., based on excessive corporal punishment, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Taheen’s out-of-court statements that the appellant choked and scratched his neck were sufficiently corroborated by testimony from a caseworker regarding her observations of Taheen’s injuries, as well as by photographs of the injuries to his neck (see Matter of Amerriah S. [Kadiatou Y.], 100 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2012]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948, 949 [2009]; Matter of Nicholas L., 50 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2008]).

The evidence also supported the derivative finding of neglect as to the children Jallah J. and Tah-Asia J. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Jacob P. [Sasha R.], 107 AD3d 719, 720 [2013]; Matter of Delehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 AD3d 668, 669 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2011]).

Chambers, J.E, Austin, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

[1001]*1001In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, George J. appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 29, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the child Taheen J. and derivatively neglected the children Jallah J. and Tah-Asia J.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, any finding that a child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d 1313, 1313 [2012]). Neglect may be established by even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Joseph O’D. [Denise O’D.], 102 AD3d 874, 875 [2013]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d at 1313; Matter of Padmine M. [Sandra M.], 84 AD3d 806, 807 [2011]). The Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]; Matter of Yanni D. [Hope J.], 95 AD3d at 1313).

Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect with respect to the child Taheen J., based on excessive corporal punishment, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Taheen’s out-of-court statements that the appellant choked and scratched his neck were sufficiently corroborated by testimony from a caseworker regarding her observations of Taheen’s injuries, as well as by photographs of the injuries to his neck (see Matter of Amerriah S. [Kadiatou Y.], 100 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2012]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948, 949 [2009]; Matter of Nicholas L., 50 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2008]).

The evidence also supported the derivative finding of neglect as to the children Jallah J. and Tah-Asia J. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Jacob P. [Sasha R.], 107 AD3d 719, 720 [2013]; Matter of Delehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 AD3d 668, 669 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2011]).

Chambers, J.E, Austin, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 1000, 989 N.Y.S.2d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jallah-j-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack