Matter of Giannis F. (Manny M.--Vilma C.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Giannis F. (Manny M.--Vilma C.)

2017 NY Slip Op 8611, 156 A.D.3d 446, 64 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2017 WL 6043609

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2017

Docket5162

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8611 (Matter of Giannis F. (Manny M.--Vilma 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

Matter of Giannis F. (Manny M.--Vilma C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 8611, 156 A.D.3d 446, 64 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2017 WL 6043609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2014, which, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 16, 2013, found that respondent Manny M. was a person legally responsible for the subject child when he sexually abused her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he was not a person legally responsible for the child (see Matter of Alijah S. [Daniel S.], 133 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 917 [2016]), and we decline to consider it.

Were we to consider it, we would find that the record supports the determination that respondent, the subject child’s older half-brother, was a person legally responsible for the child under Family Court Act § 1012 (g) (see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.], 25 NY3d 1001, 1005-1006 [2015]; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790, 796 [1996]). The child testified that respondent repeatedly sexually abused her over a period of nearly four years, and that her mother did not believe her when she disclosed his conduct to her, resulting in a neglect finding against the mother (see 134 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2015]). Although respondent was a minor when he began abusing his half sister, who is five years younger than he, the statutory definition of a “[p]erson legally responsible” does not exclude minors (Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]), and minor siblings can fall within its ambit (see Matter of Catherine G. v County of Essex, 3 NY3d 175, 180 [2004]; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 AD2d 594 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]). Furthermore, respondent had reached the age of majority when some of the acts of sexual abuse took place.

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

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2014, which, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 16, 2013, found that respondent Manny M. was a person legally responsible for the subject child when he sexually abused her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he was not a person legally responsible for the child (see Matter of Alijah S. [Daniel S.], 133 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 917 [2016]), and we decline to consider it.

Were we to consider it, we would find that the record supports the determination that respondent, the subject child’s older half-brother, was a person legally responsible for the child under Family Court Act § 1012 (g) (see Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.], 25 NY3d 1001, 1005-1006 [2015]; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790, 796 [1996]). The child testified that respondent repeatedly sexually abused her over a period of nearly four years, and that her mother did not believe her when she disclosed his conduct to her, resulting in a neglect finding against the mother (see 134 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2015]). Although respondent was a minor when he began abusing his half sister, who is five years younger than he, the statutory definition of a “[p]erson legally responsible” does not exclude minors (Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]), and minor siblings can fall within its ambit (see Matter of Catherine G. v County of Essex, 3 NY3d 175, 180 [2004]; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 AD2d 594 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]). Furthermore, respondent had reached the age of majority when some of the acts of sexual abuse took place.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8611, 156 A.D.3d 446, 64 N.Y.S.3d 531, 2017 WL 6043609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-giannis-f-manny-m-vilma-c-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack