Matter of Nassair S. (Chareshma T.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Nassair S. (Chareshma T.)

2016 NY Slip Op 8014, 144 A.D.3d 604, 43 N.Y.S.3d 274

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

Docket2332 2331 2330

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8014 (Matter of Nassair S. (Chareshma T.)) 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 Nassair S. (Chareshma T.), 2016 NY Slip Op 8014, 144 A.D.3d 604, 43 N.Y.S.3d 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review fact-finding orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 20, 2014, which found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the admissible evidence supports the court’s finding that the mother neglected the subject children *605 by leaving them with their grandmother, who agreed to care for them for just one day, and then failing to return for the next ten days, at which point the grandmother left the children in the hallway outside of another relative’s home (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Charisma D. [Sandra R.], 115 AD3d 441 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Victor V., 261 AD2d 479 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 819 [1999]). The caseworker’s testimony that the mother told her that she had not seen the children for those ten days, despite having asked the grandmother to watch them for one day, was admissible as an admission against interest of a party (see Matter of Jermaine J. [Howard J.], 121 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2014]). The mother made no offer of proof concerning the remainder of her statement to the caseworker, which she sought to elicit under the rule of completeness, so that the issue is not preserved for appeal (see People v Berlin, 39 AD3d 351, 352-353 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 840 [2007]). Based on the mother’s failure to testify concerning the neglect allegations against herself, the court was entitled to draw the strongest inference against her that the opposing evidence permits (see Matter of Michael P. [Orthensia H.], 137 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Serenity P. [Shameka P.], 74 AD3d 1855 [4th Dept 2010]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review fact-finding orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 20, 2014, which found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the admissible evidence supports the court’s finding that the mother neglected the subject children *605 by leaving them with their grandmother, who agreed to care for them for just one day, and then failing to return for the next ten days, at which point the grandmother left the children in the hallway outside of another relative’s home (see Matter of Clarissa S.P. [Jaris S.], 91 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Charisma D. [Sandra R.], 115 AD3d 441 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Victor V., 261 AD2d 479 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 819 [1999]). The caseworker’s testimony that the mother told her that she had not seen the children for those ten days, despite having asked the grandmother to watch them for one day, was admissible as an admission against interest of a party (see Matter of Jermaine J. [Howard J.], 121 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2014]). The mother made no offer of proof concerning the remainder of her statement to the caseworker, which she sought to elicit under the rule of completeness, so that the issue is not preserved for appeal (see People v Berlin, 39 AD3d 351, 352-353 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 840 [2007]). Based on the mother’s failure to testify concerning the neglect allegations against herself, the court was entitled to draw the strongest inference against her that the opposing evidence permits (see Matter of Michael P. [Orthensia H.], 137 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Serenity P. [Shameka P.], 74 AD3d 1855 [4th Dept 2010]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8014, 144 A.D.3d 604, 43 N.Y.S.3d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nassair-s-chareshma-t-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack