In re Quinn S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Quinn S.

284 A.D.2d 1015, 727 N.Y.S.2d 670

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 1015 (In re Quinn S.) 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 Quinn S., 284 A.D.2d 1015, 727 N.Y.S.2d 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent appeals from orders of fact-finding and disposition adjudging that respondent had neglected her three children. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the children’s hearsay statements were adequately corroborated and thus constitute sufficient evidence to support the findings of neglect (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). By failing to request that Family Court draw an adverse inference based on petitioner’s failure to call certain witnesses, respondent failed to preserve for our review her present contention that the court erred in failing to do so (see generally, Williams v State of New York, 254 AD2d 749; Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v State of New York, 225 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Neglect.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Bums, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent appeals from orders of fact-finding and disposition adjudging that respondent had neglected her three children. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the children’s hearsay statements were adequately corroborated and thus constitute sufficient evidence to support the findings of neglect (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). By failing to request that Family Court draw an adverse inference based on petitioner’s failure to call certain witnesses, respondent failed to preserve for our review her present contention that the court erred in failing to do so (see generally, Williams v State of New York, 254 AD2d 749; Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v State of New York, 225 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Neglect.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Bums, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 1015, 727 N.Y.S.2d 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-quinn-s-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack