In re Seth G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Seth G.

107 A.D.3d 711, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedJune 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.3d 711 (In re Seth G.) 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 Seth G., 107 A.D.3d 711, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.

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

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court [712]*712providently exercised its discretion in conforming the pleadings to the proof (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of Taylor P., 63 AD3d 1161 [2009]). In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of 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 Quincy K. [Herbie W], 92 AD3d 944, 945 [2012]). Here, the Family Court’s finding of neglect based upon the father engaging in inappropriate physical contact with the subject child was supported by a preponderance of evidence (see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701 [2007]; Matter of A.G., 253 AD2d 318 [1999]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.

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

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court [712]*712providently exercised its discretion in conforming the pleadings to the proof (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of Taylor P., 63 AD3d 1161 [2009]). In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of 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 Quincy K. [Herbie W], 92 AD3d 944, 945 [2012]). Here, the Family Court’s finding of neglect based upon the father engaging in inappropriate physical contact with the subject child was supported by a preponderance of evidence (see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701 [2007]; Matter of A.G., 253 AD2d 318 [1999]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 711, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seth-g-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack