Matter of Kyle R. (Sherika S.)

124 A.D.3d 899, 998 N.Y.S.2d 918
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2015
Docket2014-01532
StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 899 (Matter of Kyle R. (Sherika 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 Kyle R. (Sherika S.), 124 A.D.3d 899, 998 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J), dated February 7, 2014. The order, after a hearing, found that the mother had neglected the subject child and released the subject child to the custody of the father. The notice of appeal from an order of fact-finding dated January 24, 2014, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The appeal brings up for review the order of fact-finding.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Robert K.S. [John S.], 121 AD3d 908 [2014]).

Here, contrary to the mother’s contention, a preponderance of the evidence established that the subject child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother’s behavior (see Matter of Isaiah M. [Antoya M.], 96 AD3d 516, 517 [2012]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630, 630 [2008]; Matter of Pedro C. [Josephine B.], 1 AD3d 267, 268 [2003]; Matter of Barbara S., 244 AD2d 556, 556-557 [1997]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother neglected the subject child.

Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nicholson v. Scoppetta
820 N.E.2d 840 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
Matter of Robert K. S. (John S.)
121 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Pedro C.
1 A.D.3d 267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Faith J.
47 A.D.3d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Barbara S.
244 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A.D.3d 899, 998 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kyle-r-sherika-s-nyappdiv-2015.