In re Pederson

NYC Family Court

In re Pederson

187 Misc. 2d 486, 723 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 57

DecidedMarch 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 187 Misc. 2d 486 (In re Pederson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Pederson, 187 Misc. 2d 486, 723 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 57 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Philip C. Segal, J.

In this child protective proceeding (Family Ct Act art 10), petitioner, New York City Administration for Children’s Ser[487]*487vices, moves for an order compelling respondents to submit to pretrial dental examinations in which dental molds or impressions of respondents’ teeth would be made (see People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42 [1981]). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

The verified petition alleges, among other things, that: (i) respondents’ three-year-old son was found during a medical examination to have adult human bite marks on his right shoulder; (ii) the child had been in respondents’ care and custody; (iii) respondents offered no explanation for the bite marks; and (iv) respondents should each be held responsible for the condition of the child under the statutory res ipsa loquitur presumption (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; see generally Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238 [1993]). As such, respondents’ dental impressions are “in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]) and may be compelled as a matter of pretrial discovery (Matter of M. Children, 171 Misc 2d 838 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1997]).

Further, petitioner has established “probable cause that the [dental] evidence is reasonably related to establishing the allegations” set forth in the petition and that obtaining the evidence does not present an “unreasonable intrusion or risk of serious physical injury” to respondents (Family Ct Act § 1038-a; People v Middleton, supra).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Philip C. Segal, J.

In this child protective proceeding (Family Ct Act art 10), petitioner, New York City Administration for Children’s Ser[487]*487vices, moves for an order compelling respondents to submit to pretrial dental examinations in which dental molds or impressions of respondents’ teeth would be made (see People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42 [1981]). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

The verified petition alleges, among other things, that: (i) respondents’ three-year-old son was found during a medical examination to have adult human bite marks on his right shoulder; (ii) the child had been in respondents’ care and custody; (iii) respondents offered no explanation for the bite marks; and (iv) respondents should each be held responsible for the condition of the child under the statutory res ipsa loquitur presumption (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; see generally Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238 [1993]). As such, respondents’ dental impressions are “in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]) and may be compelled as a matter of pretrial discovery (Matter of M. Children, 171 Misc 2d 838 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1997]).

Further, petitioner has established “probable cause that the [dental] evidence is reasonably related to establishing the allegations” set forth in the petition and that obtaining the evidence does not present an “unreasonable intrusion or risk of serious physical injury” to respondents (Family Ct Act § 1038-a; People v Middleton, supra).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 Misc. 2d 486, 723 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pederson-nycfamct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack