In re Nicolette H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nicolette H.

10 A.D.3d 657, 781 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 657 (In re Nicolette H.) 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 Nicolette H., 10 A.D.3d 657, 781 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated February 10, 2003, which, after its [658]*658presentation of evidence at a fact-finding hearing, granted the separate motions of the respondents Michelle S., John E, and the Law Guardian to deny the petitions and dismiss the proceedings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner, Dutchess County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS), failed to establish a prima facie case that the subject children were abused or neglected within the meaning of the statute (see Family Ct Act § 1046; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]). Under the particular circumstances of these cases, the Family Court properly refused to allow a caseworker to testify concerning prior investigations of the respondents which led to reports later determined to be unfounded (see Social Services Law § 422 [5], [6]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the separate motions of the respondents Michelle S., John E, and the Law Guardian to deny the petitions and dismiss the proceedings.

The remaining contention of the DSS is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated February 10, 2003, which, after its [658]*658presentation of evidence at a fact-finding hearing, granted the separate motions of the respondents Michelle S., John E, and the Law Guardian to deny the petitions and dismiss the proceedings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner, Dutchess County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS), failed to establish a prima facie case that the subject children were abused or neglected within the meaning of the statute (see Family Ct Act § 1046; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]). Under the particular circumstances of these cases, the Family Court properly refused to allow a caseworker to testify concerning prior investigations of the respondents which led to reports later determined to be unfounded (see Social Services Law § 422 [5], [6]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the separate motions of the respondents Michelle S., John E, and the Law Guardian to deny the petitions and dismiss the proceedings.

The remaining contention of the DSS is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 657, 781 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nicolette-h-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack