In re Richard GG.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richard GG.

202 A.D.2d 882, 610 N.Y.S.2d 878

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 882 (In re Richard GG.) 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 Richard GG., 202 A.D.2d 882, 610 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), entered August 25, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to, inter alia, adjudicate respondent’s grandson to be an abused child.

Contrary to respondent’s contention, we find that evidence exists in the record, including the opinions and findings of four professionals involved in the child’s case, to sufficiently corroborate the child’s out-of-court statements. As the statutory requirements of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) have been satisfied, Family Court’s order is affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), entered August 25, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to, inter alia, adjudicate respondent’s grandson to be an abused child.

Contrary to respondent’s contention, we find that evidence exists in the record, including the opinions and findings of four professionals involved in the child’s case, to sufficiently corroborate the child’s out-of-court statements. As the statutory requirements of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) have been satisfied, Family Court’s order is affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 882, 610 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-gg-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack