In re Yazalin P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Yazalin P.

256 A.D.2d 55, 680 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 55 (In re Yazalin P.) 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 Yazalin P., 256 A.D.2d 55, 680 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 21, 1997, placing the subject children in foster care for 12 months, upon a fact-finding determination of abuse and derivative abuse, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that respondent allowed a sex offense to be committed against the child is supported by the child’s unexplained vaginal and anal herpes (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; § 1046 [a] [ii]; Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213, lv denied 86 NY2d 706; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dawn B.], 185 AD2d 340). Respondent was properly precluded from cross-[56]*56examining petitioner’s expert witness with respect to the contents of a manual that the witness did not accept as authoritative (see, Ithier v Solomon, 59 AD2d 935; Kaplan v International Paint, 250 AD2d 817). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 21, 1997, placing the subject children in foster care for 12 months, upon a fact-finding determination of abuse and derivative abuse, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that respondent allowed a sex offense to be committed against the child is supported by the child’s unexplained vaginal and anal herpes (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]; § 1046 [a] [ii]; Matter of J.S., 215 AD2d 213, lv denied 86 NY2d 706; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dawn B.], 185 AD2d 340). Respondent was properly precluded from cross-[56]*56examining petitioner’s expert witness with respect to the contents of a manual that the witness did not accept as authoritative (see, Ithier v Solomon, 59 AD2d 935; Kaplan v International Paint, 250 AD2d 817). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 55, 680 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yazalin-p-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack