Matter of Gabriel J. (Stacey J.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gabriel J. (Stacey J.)

127 A.D.3d 667, 8 N.Y.S.3d 189

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

DecidedApril 30, 2015

Docket14975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 667 (Matter of Gabriel J. (Stacey J.)) 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 Gabriel J. (Stacey J.), 127 A.D.3d 667, 8 N.Y.S.3d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother had neglected the six subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that respondent mother’s boyfriend inflicted excessive corporal punishment on three of the children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]), and that respondent mother knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to take any steps to protect those children (see Matter of Gabriel J. [O’Neill H.], 99 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 999 [2013]). The children’s out-of-court statements were cross-corroborated by each other’s statements to the agency’s caseworker, and by the caseworker’s observation of an injury sustained by one of the children (see Matter of Jasmine A. [Albert G.], 120 AD3d 1125, 1125 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Carmine G. [Franklin G.], 115 AD3d 594, 594 [1st Dept 2014]). The caseworker also testified that the mother had acknowledged knowing about incidents in which the boyfriend punched one child in the head and struck another in the mouth, and that she did not address the situation. Further, the mother’s behavior towards the three children who were subject to excessive corporal punishment “demonstrates a sufficiently faulty understanding of her parental duties to warrant an inference of an ongoing danger” to all of the children (Matter of Cevon W. [Talisha W.], 110 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2013]).

The caseworkers’ testimony concerning unsanitary conditions in the apartment was insufficient standing alone to provide an independent ground for finding neglect (see Matter of Clydeane C. [Annetta C.], 74 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2010]; *668 Matter of Iyanah D., 65 AD3d 927, 927 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother had neglected the six subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that respondent mother’s boyfriend inflicted excessive corporal punishment on three of the children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]), and that respondent mother knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to take any steps to protect those children (see Matter of Gabriel J. [O’Neill H.], 99 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 999 [2013]). The children’s out-of-court statements were cross-corroborated by each other’s statements to the agency’s caseworker, and by the caseworker’s observation of an injury sustained by one of the children (see Matter of Jasmine A. [Albert G.], 120 AD3d 1125, 1125 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Carmine G. [Franklin G.], 115 AD3d 594, 594 [1st Dept 2014]). The caseworker also testified that the mother had acknowledged knowing about incidents in which the boyfriend punched one child in the head and struck another in the mouth, and that she did not address the situation. Further, the mother’s behavior towards the three children who were subject to excessive corporal punishment “demonstrates a sufficiently faulty understanding of her parental duties to warrant an inference of an ongoing danger” to all of the children (Matter of Cevon W. [Talisha W.], 110 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2013]).

The caseworkers’ testimony concerning unsanitary conditions in the apartment was insufficient standing alone to provide an independent ground for finding neglect (see Matter of Clydeane C. [Annetta C.], 74 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2010]; *668 Matter of Iyanah D., 65 AD3d 927, 927 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 667, 8 N.Y.S.3d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gabriel-j-stacey-j-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack