In re Jeremiah M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jeremiah M.

290 A.D.2d 450, 738 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 256

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 450 (In re Jeremiah M.) 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 Jeremiah M., 290 A.D.2d 450, 738 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated June 27, 2000, as, after a hearing, found that he had neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the Family Court’s findings must be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Alan B., 267 AD2d 306). The evidence supports the determination of the Family Court that the presentment agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected Jeremiah in that he committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of Jeremiah, and that while carrying Jeremiah, placed him at a substantial risk of harm by engaging in a physical altercation with another person (see, Matter of Deandre T., 253 AD2d 497; Matter of Lonell J., 242 AD2d 58; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated June 27, 2000, as, after a hearing, found that he had neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the Family Court’s findings must be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Alan B., 267 AD2d 306). The evidence supports the determination of the Family Court that the presentment agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected Jeremiah in that he committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of Jeremiah, and that while carrying Jeremiah, placed him at a substantial risk of harm by engaging in a physical altercation with another person (see, Matter of Deandre T., 253 AD2d 497; Matter of Lonell J., 242 AD2d 58; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 450, 738 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jeremiah-m-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack