In re Michelle L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michelle L.

101 A.D.3d 455, 955 N.Y.2d 43

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 455 (In re Michelle L.) 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 Michelle L., 101 A.D.3d 455, 955 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[456]*456The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), including the caseworker’s testimony that respondent permitted her husband to babysit for one of the children even though the husband had thrown lighter fluid on respondent and had threatened to set her and the stepchildren on fire, had “poked” one of the stepchildren with a knife when the child tried to intervene in a fight between respondent and the husband, and used marijuana in the home (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371-372 [2004]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Kelly A. [Ghyslaine G.], 95 AD3d 784 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

[456]*456The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), including the caseworker’s testimony that respondent permitted her husband to babysit for one of the children even though the husband had thrown lighter fluid on respondent and had threatened to set her and the stepchildren on fire, had “poked” one of the stepchildren with a knife when the child tried to intervene in a fight between respondent and the husband, and used marijuana in the home (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371-372 [2004]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Kelly A. [Ghyslaine G.], 95 AD3d 784 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 455, 955 N.Y.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michelle-l-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack