In re Jimmy A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jimmy A.

218 A.D.2d 734, 630 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8796

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 734 (In re Jimmy A.) 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 Jimmy A., 218 A.D.2d 734, 630 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered September 21, 1994, which granted the motion of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for summary judgment and declared the child Jimmy to be an abused child and the child Bryan to be a neglected child, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, entered November 21, 1994, which, inter alia, after a hearing, directed the father to "have no contact whatsoever” with the children.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly awarded summary judgment to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The father was convicted in County Court of sodomy in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. The same conduct was alleged in the abuse petition filed in regard to Jimmy. The father’s criminal conviction is conclusive proof as to the finding that Jimmy is an abused child (see, Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Michael V.] v James M., 83 NY2d 178; Matter of Sarah L., 207 AD2d 1016). The father’s unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise a factual issue (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted (see, Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Michael V.] v James M., supra; S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300, 304). Under the circumstances of this case, the finding that the father sexually abused Jimmy supported a summary determination that Bryan was a neglected child (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 AD2d 694; Matter of Rasheda S., 183 AD2d 770). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, 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 from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered September 21, 1994, which granted the motion of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for summary judgment and declared the child Jimmy to be an abused child and the child Bryan to be a neglected child, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, entered November 21, 1994, which, inter alia, after a hearing, directed the father to "have no contact whatsoever” with the children.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly awarded summary judgment to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The father was convicted in County Court of sodomy in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. The same conduct was alleged in the abuse petition filed in regard to Jimmy. The father’s criminal conviction is conclusive proof as to the finding that Jimmy is an abused child (see, Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Michael V.] v James M., 83 NY2d 178; Matter of Sarah L., 207 AD2d 1016). The father’s unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise a factual issue (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted (see, Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Michael V.] v James M., supra; S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300, 304). Under the circumstances of this case, the finding that the father sexually abused Jimmy supported a summary determination that Bryan was a neglected child (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 AD2d 694; Matter of Rasheda S., 183 AD2d 770). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 734, 630 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jimmy-a-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack