In re Robert D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Robert D.

18 A.D.3d 871, 796 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 871 (In re Robert D.) 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 Robert D., 18 A.D.3d 871, 796 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated March 4, 2004, which denied the petitions and dismissed the proceedings.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the subject children [872]*872was sexually abused by another as alleged and, therefore, that the respondent parents were chargeable with neglect for failing to protect against the same (see generally Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Brittany K., 308 AD2d 585 [2003]; Matter of Latisha W., 221 AD2d 645 [1995]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

— In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated March 4, 2004, which denied the petitions and dismissed the proceedings.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the subject children [872]*872was sexually abused by another as alleged and, therefore, that the respondent parents were chargeable with neglect for failing to protect against the same (see generally Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]; Matter of Brittany K., 308 AD2d 585 [2003]; Matter of Latisha W., 221 AD2d 645 [1995]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 871, 796 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-d-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack