In re Khaliyah Vjelytt W.-D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Khaliyah Vjelytt W.-D.

99 A.D.3d 602, 952 N.Y.2d 551

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 602 (In re Khaliyah Vjelytt W.-D.) 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 Khaliyah Vjelytt W.-D., 99 A.D.3d 602, 952 N.Y.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), including the police officer’s testimony that respondent had assaulted her in the infant child’s presence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Eugene L. [Julianna H.], 83 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Gianna C.-E. [Alonso E.], 77 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2010]). There is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s credibility findings or to conclude that the officer’s testimony was tailored to avoid constitutional concerns (see Matter of Kelly A. [Ghyslaine G.], 95 AD3d 784, 784 [1st Dept 2012]).

The Family Court properly denied respondent’s application for a suspended judgment, because she had not yet completed the required services (see Matter of Shaqualle Khalif W. [Denise W.], 96 AD 3d 698, 699 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), including the police officer’s testimony that respondent had assaulted her in the infant child’s presence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Eugene L. [Julianna H.], 83 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Gianna C.-E. [Alonso E.], 77 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2010]). There is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s credibility findings or to conclude that the officer’s testimony was tailored to avoid constitutional concerns (see Matter of Kelly A. [Ghyslaine G.], 95 AD3d 784, 784 [1st Dept 2012]).

The Family Court properly denied respondent’s application for a suspended judgment, because she had not yet completed the required services (see Matter of Shaqualle Khalif W. [Denise W.], 96 AD 3d 698, 699 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 602, 952 N.Y.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-khaliyah-vjelytt-w-d-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack