In re Quincy K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Quincy K.

92 A.D.3d 944, 938 N.Y.2d 904

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 944 (In re Quincy K.) 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 Quincy K., 92 A.D.3d 944, 938 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden [945]*945of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Besthani M., 13 AD3d 452, 452 [2004]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Chanyae S. [Rena W.], 82 AD3d 1247, 1247 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948, 949 [2009]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759, 760-761 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ, concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden [945]*945of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Besthani M., 13 AD3d 452, 452 [2004]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Chanyae S. [Rena W.], 82 AD3d 1247, 1247 [2011]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948, 949 [2009]; Matter of Joshua B., 28 AD3d 759, 760-761 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 944, 938 N.Y.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-quincy-k-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack