In re Samantha R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samantha R.

116 A.D.3d 867, 983 N.Y.S.2d 415

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 16, 2014·Published

Opinion

— In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Loguercio, J.), dated February 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the contention of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, an appeal from an intermediate order in a case involving abuse or neglect may be taken as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Alyssa L. [Deborah K.], 93 AD3d 1083 [2012]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court did [868]*868not err in relying upon the child’s out-of-court statements, as those statements were sufficiently corroborated (see Matter of Astrid C., 43 AD3d 819 [2007]; Matter of Whitney H., 19 AD3d 491 [2005]). Further, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the subject child due to her abuse of alcohol (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; Matter of Bianca P. [Theodore A.P.], 94 AD3d 1126 [2012]). Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

— In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Loguercio, J.), dated February 28, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the contention of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, an appeal from an intermediate order in a case involving abuse or neglect may be taken as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Alyssa L. [Deborah K.], 93 AD3d 1083 [2012]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court did [868]*868not err in relying upon the child’s out-of-court statements, as those statements were sufficiently corroborated (see Matter of Astrid C., 43 AD3d 819 [2007]; Matter of Whitney H., 19 AD3d 491 [2005]). Further, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the subject child due to her abuse of alcohol (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; Matter of Bianca P. [Theodore A.P.], 94 AD3d 1126 [2012]). Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

In re Samantha R., 116 A.D.3d 867, 983 N.Y.S.2d 415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

116 A.D.3d 867 (In re Samantha R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related