In re Joshua J.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joshua J.P.

105 A.D.3d 552, 963 N.Y.S.2d 119

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

DecidedApril 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 552 (In re Joshua J.P.) 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 Joshua J.P., 105 A.D.3d 552, 963 N.Y.S.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a hearing, found that respondent-appellant had neglected the subject child by using excessive corporal punishment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). Respondent’s frequent use of belts, cords and other objects, including an incident that left a scar on the child’s thumb, constituted excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Alysha M., 24 AD3d 255 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]). The child’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the agency caseworker and physical evidence, as well as respondent’s admission that she might have struck the child on the six or seven occasions that she attempted to discipline him with a belt. It cannot he said that the Family Court erred in discrediting respondent’s testimony (see Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849, 850 [2d Dept 2005]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a hearing, found that respondent-appellant had neglected the subject child by using excessive corporal punishment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). Respondent’s frequent use of belts, cords and other objects, including an incident that left a scar on the child’s thumb, constituted excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Alysha M., 24 AD3d 255 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]). The child’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the agency caseworker and physical evidence, as well as respondent’s admission that she might have struck the child on the six or seven occasions that she attempted to discipline him with a belt. It cannot he said that the Family Court erred in discrediting respondent’s testimony (see Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849, 850 [2d Dept 2005]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 552, 963 N.Y.S.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joshua-jp-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack