In re Latasha M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Latasha M.

205 A.D.2d 457, 613 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedJune 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 457 (In re Latasha 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 Latasha M., 205 A.D.2d 457, 613 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered June 26, 1992, which placed the subject children with petitioner Commissioner of Social Services for a period of one year and required respondent to attend counseling with an approved therapist, following a fact-finding determination that respondent had sexually abused one of the subject children and neglected all four children by leaving them alone and unattended on October 18, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied respondent’s motion to reopen the fact-finding hearing to consider newly discovered medical records. Assuming, as respondent contends, that diligent efforts on his part to obtain all relevant materials were thwarted by petitioner’s misrepresentations, the new evidence would not likely have produced a different result (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Nor is reversal warranted by Family Court’s acceptance of the out-of-court statements of one child as corroborating those of another (Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 123-124). The variations in the children’s accounts of the incident were minor and do not support respondent’s contention that reliance thereon in finding sexual abuse was an abuse of discretion (see, supra, at 119). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered June 26, 1992, which placed the subject children with petitioner Commissioner of Social Services for a period of one year and required respondent to attend counseling with an approved therapist, following a fact-finding determination that respondent had sexually abused one of the subject children and neglected all four children by leaving them alone and unattended on October 18, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied respondent’s motion to reopen the fact-finding hearing to consider newly discovered medical records. Assuming, as respondent contends, that diligent efforts on his part to obtain all relevant materials were thwarted by petitioner’s misrepresentations, the new evidence would not likely have produced a different result (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Nor is reversal warranted by Family Court’s acceptance of the out-of-court statements of one child as corroborating those of another (Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 123-124). The variations in the children’s accounts of the incident were minor and do not support respondent’s contention that reliance thereon in finding sexual abuse was an abuse of discretion (see, supra, at 119). We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 457, 613 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-latasha-m-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack