In re Shameka W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shameka W.

224 A.D.2d 700, 638 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1822

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 1996·Published

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.), dated June 15, 1993, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated January 7, 1993, made after a hearing, found that Shameka W. had been sexually abused by her maternal grandfather and neglected and derivatively abused by her mother. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The determinations by the Family Court that Shameka’s maternal grandfather had sexually abused her and that the appellant had neglected and derivatively abused Shameka are supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct [701]*701Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117). Moreover, notwithstanding the appellant’s claims to the contrary, Shameka’s out-of-court statements regarding the maternal grandfather’s abuse were sufficiently corroborated by, inter alia, Shameka’s use of dolls to reenact the sexual abuse (see, Matter of Josephine G., 218 AD2d 656; Matter of Racielli C., 215 AD2d 477).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.), dated June 15, 1993, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated January 7, 1993, made after a hearing, found that Shameka W. had been sexually abused by her maternal grandfather and neglected and derivatively abused by her mother. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The determinations by the Family Court that Shameka’s maternal grandfather had sexually abused her and that the appellant had neglected and derivatively abused Shameka are supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct [701]*701Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117). Moreover, notwithstanding the appellant’s claims to the contrary, Shameka’s out-of-court statements regarding the maternal grandfather’s abuse were sufficiently corroborated by, inter alia, Shameka’s use of dolls to reenact the sexual abuse (see, Matter of Josephine G., 218 AD2d 656; Matter of Racielli C., 215 AD2d 477).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

In re Shameka W., 224 A.D.2d 700, 638 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 700 (In re Shameka W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related