In re Jennifer T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jennifer T.

212 A.D.2d 1039, 623 N.Y.S.2d 45

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 1039 (In re Jennifer T.) 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 Jennifer T., 212 A.D.2d 1039, 623 N.Y.S.2d 45 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent argues that the validation testimony of petitioner’s expert was insufficient to corroborate the children’s out-of-court statements and thus that the corroboration requirement in Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) was not met. Even assuming, arguendo, that the validation testimony was insufficient in this case, we conclude that the statement of each victim cross-corroborates the statement of the other victim, thereby satisfying the statutory corroboration requirement (see, Matter of Francis Charles W, 71 NY2d 112, 124; see also, Matter of Scott X., 184 AD2d 866, 868). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J.—Child Abuse.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent argues that the validation testimony of petitioner’s expert was insufficient to corroborate the children’s out-of-court statements and thus that the corroboration requirement in Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) was not met. Even assuming, arguendo, that the validation testimony was insufficient in this case, we conclude that the statement of each victim cross-corroborates the statement of the other victim, thereby satisfying the statutory corroboration requirement (see, Matter of Francis Charles W, 71 NY2d 112, 124; see also, Matter of Scott X., 184 AD2d 866, 868). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J.—Child Abuse.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 1039, 623 N.Y.S.2d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jennifer-t-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack