In re Karrie B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Karrie B.

207 A.D.2d 1002, 617 N.Y.S.2d 663

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1002 (In re Karrie B.) 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 Karrie B., 207 A.D.2d 1002, 617 N.Y.S.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of disposition adjudging Karrie B. to be an abused child and, by reason of that abuse, adjudging Daniel B. and Tina B. to be neglected children. There is no merit to respondent’s contention that, because the testimony of Karrie B. was not corroborated, proof of sexual abuse was legally insufficient. The statutory requirement of corroboration applies only to out-of-court hearsay statements of the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117-118). Karrie B.’s testimony therefore does not require corroboration. Karrie B.’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis in the record to disturb the trial court’s resolution of credibility. " The greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered’ ” (Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. (Kimmie W.) v Randy M., 206 AD2d 878, [1003]*1003quoting Matter of McCarthy v Braiman, 125 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.— Child Abuse and Neglect.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of disposition adjudging Karrie B. to be an abused child and, by reason of that abuse, adjudging Daniel B. and Tina B. to be neglected children. There is no merit to respondent’s contention that, because the testimony of Karrie B. was not corroborated, proof of sexual abuse was legally insufficient. The statutory requirement of corroboration applies only to out-of-court hearsay statements of the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117-118). Karrie B.’s testimony therefore does not require corroboration. Karrie B.’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis in the record to disturb the trial court’s resolution of credibility. " The greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered’ ” (Matter of Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs. (Kimmie W.) v Randy M., 206 AD2d 878, [1003]*1003quoting Matter of McCarthy v Braiman, 125 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.— Child Abuse and Neglect.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1002, 617 N.Y.S.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-karrie-b-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack