In re Taylor C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Taylor C.

89 A.D.3d 405, 931 N.Y.2d 852

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 405 (In re Taylor C.) 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 Taylor C., 89 A.D.3d 405, 931 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of neglect (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). Respondent’s mother testified that she witnessed respondent push the then one-month-old child, causing the child to slide across the [406]*406floor from one room to another. This single incident is sufficient to support a finding of neglect, given that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent risk of being impaired as a result of respondent’s behavior (see Matter of Jared S. [Monet S.], 78 AD3d 536 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

Family Court properly drew the strongest negative inference from respondent’s failure to appear and testify (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79-80 [1995]; Matter of Cantina B., 26 AD3d 327, 328 [2006]). The court did not deprive respondent of due process by holding the fact-finding hearing in her absence. The record shows that respondent received notice of the proceedings and was represented by counsel; that the court repeatedly adjourned the proceedings due to respondent’s often unexplained absences; and that respondent provided incorrect contact information (see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Elizabeth T. [Leonard T.], 3 AD3d 751, 753 [2004]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of neglect (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). Respondent’s mother testified that she witnessed respondent push the then one-month-old child, causing the child to slide across the [406]*406floor from one room to another. This single incident is sufficient to support a finding of neglect, given that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent risk of being impaired as a result of respondent’s behavior (see Matter of Jared S. [Monet S.], 78 AD3d 536 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

Family Court properly drew the strongest negative inference from respondent’s failure to appear and testify (see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79-80 [1995]; Matter of Cantina B., 26 AD3d 327, 328 [2006]). The court did not deprive respondent of due process by holding the fact-finding hearing in her absence. The record shows that respondent received notice of the proceedings and was represented by counsel; that the court repeatedly adjourned the proceedings due to respondent’s often unexplained absences; and that respondent provided incorrect contact information (see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Elizabeth T. [Leonard T.], 3 AD3d 751, 753 [2004]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 405, 931 N.Y.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-c-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack