Matter of Enrique S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Enrique S.

134 A.D.3d 576, 23 N.Y.S.3d 30

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2015

Docket16456

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 576 (Matter of Enrique S.) 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 Enrique S., 134 A.D.3d 576, 23 N.Y.S.3d 30 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that respondent father had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*577 The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The record evidences the father’s untreated mental illness, aggressive and violent behavior towards the mother, and his admission that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which raised the substantial probability of neglect that would place the children at imminent risk of impairment if released to his care (see Matter of Liarah H. [Dora S.], 111 AD3d 514, 515 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. [Christian B.], 92 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2012]).

Furthermore, the court properly granted petitioner agency’s motion to amend the petition to conform to the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]). The record demonstrates that the father had ample notice of the new allegations and an opportunity to respond (see Matter of Aaron C. [Grace C.], 105 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Madison H. [Demezz H. — Tabitha A.], 99 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition to meeting its burden of showing that the father neglected the subject children by reason of his mental illness, the record supports the alternative theory of neglect advanced by the agency based on the failure of the father to protect the children from the mother’s neglect, which he knew, or should have known, created a risk of harm to them (see Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 77 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Christy C. [Roberto C.], 77 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that respondent father had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*577 The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The record evidences the father’s untreated mental illness, aggressive and violent behavior towards the mother, and his admission that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which raised the substantial probability of neglect that would place the children at imminent risk of impairment if released to his care (see Matter of Liarah H. [Dora S.], 111 AD3d 514, 515 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. [Christian B.], 92 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2012]).

Furthermore, the court properly granted petitioner agency’s motion to amend the petition to conform to the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]). The record demonstrates that the father had ample notice of the new allegations and an opportunity to respond (see Matter of Aaron C. [Grace C.], 105 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Madison H. [Demezz H. — Tabitha A.], 99 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition to meeting its burden of showing that the father neglected the subject children by reason of his mental illness, the record supports the alternative theory of neglect advanced by the agency based on the failure of the father to protect the children from the mother’s neglect, which he knew, or should have known, created a risk of harm to them (see Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 77 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Christy C. [Roberto C.], 77 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 576, 23 N.Y.S.3d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-enrique-s-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack