Matter of Andrew R. (Andrew R.--Maurice R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Andrew R. (Andrew R.--Maurice R.)

2017 NY Slip Op 584, 146 A.D.3d 709, 46 N.Y.S.3d 87

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

Docket2913 2912

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 584 (Matter of Andrew R. (Andrew R.--Maurice R.)) 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

Matter of Andrew R. (Andrew R.--Maurice R.), 2017 NY Slip Op 584, 146 A.D.3d 709, 46 N.Y.S.3d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2014, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexually abused the child Anesia and that the child Andrew was derivatively neglected, inter alia, placed Andrew in the custody of his mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or *710 about May 27, 2014, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The determination that respondent sexually abused the child Anesia is supported by Anesia’s testimony; the absence of physical injury or other medical corroboration is not dispositive (Matter of Tiffany H. [Mark H.], 117 AD3d 419 [1st Dept 2014]). Family Court credited Anesia’s testimony after careful consideration of “the significant issues” raised as to Anesia’s credibility. This Court is not better situated than Family Court to assess the witnesses’ credibility, and there is no reason for us to depart from the general rule of giving deference to the court’s credibility findings (see e.g. Matter of Fatima M., 16 AD3d 263, 273 [1st Dept 2005]).

The determination that respondent derivatively neglected the child Andrew is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; respondent’s long-term sexual abuse of Anesia indicates that he has a “faulty understanding of the duties of parenthood,” which poses a substantial risk to Andrew (see Matter of Tiffany H., 117 AD3d at 420; Matter of Matthew O. [Kenneth O.], 103 AD3d 67, 76 [1st Dept 2012]). Given the serious nature of respondent’s actions and his continued close contact with Andrew, we find that the aid of the court is needed to protect Andrew (see id.; Family Ct Act § 1051 [c]).

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2014, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexually abused the child Anesia and that the child Andrew was derivatively neglected, inter alia, placed Andrew in the custody of his mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or *710 about May 27, 2014, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The determination that respondent sexually abused the child Anesia is supported by Anesia’s testimony; the absence of physical injury or other medical corroboration is not dispositive (Matter of Tiffany H. [Mark H.], 117 AD3d 419 [1st Dept 2014]). Family Court credited Anesia’s testimony after careful consideration of “the significant issues” raised as to Anesia’s credibility. This Court is not better situated than Family Court to assess the witnesses’ credibility, and there is no reason for us to depart from the general rule of giving deference to the court’s credibility findings (see e.g. Matter of Fatima M., 16 AD3d 263, 273 [1st Dept 2005]).

The determination that respondent derivatively neglected the child Andrew is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; respondent’s long-term sexual abuse of Anesia indicates that he has a “faulty understanding of the duties of parenthood,” which poses a substantial risk to Andrew (see Matter of Tiffany H., 117 AD3d at 420; Matter of Matthew O. [Kenneth O.], 103 AD3d 67, 76 [1st Dept 2012]). Given the serious nature of respondent’s actions and his continued close contact with Andrew, we find that the aid of the court is needed to protect Andrew (see id.; Family Ct Act § 1051 [c]).

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 584, 146 A.D.3d 709, 46 N.Y.S.3d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-andrew-r-andrew-r-maurice-r-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack