Matter of Samiha R. (Shante R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Samiha R. (Shante R.)

2016 NY Slip Op 7197, 144 A.D.3d 690, 40 N.Y.S.3d 183

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket2016-01362

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7197 (Matter of Samiha R. (Shante R.)) 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 Samiha R. (Shante R.), 2016 NY Slip Op 7197, 144 A.D.3d 690, 40 N.Y.S.3d 183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated January 27, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the child Samiha R.

Ordered that order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In July of 2014, the petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the then eight-month-old child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the then three-year-old child Samiha R. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the child Samiha R.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the determination that she neglected the child Loreal R. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court’s findings are accorded great deference (see Matter of Negus T. [Fayme B.], 123 AD3d 836 [2014]; Matter of China C. [Alexis C.], 116 AD3d 953, 954 [2014]). The hearing evidence included the testimony of a police officer who, while searching an apartment pursuant to a search warrant, found a loaded gun on the floor within "arm’s length” of the child Loreal R. Under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly determined that the mother’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship created an imminent danger that the child’s physical, mental, and emotional health would be harmed (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Leah M. [Anthony M.], 81 AD3d 434 [2011]; Matter of Tajani B., 49 AD3d 874, 875 [2008]; Matter of Nicole H., 277 AD2d 380, 381 [2000]).

*691 Furthermore, the mother’s neglect of the child Loreal R. demonstrated a fundamental defect in her understanding of her parental duties sufficient to support the finding of derivative neglect with respect to the child Samiha R. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Taliya G. [Jeannie M.], 67 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated January 27, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother neglected the child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the child Samiha R.

Ordered that order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In July of 2014, the petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the then eight-month-old child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the then three-year-old child Samiha R. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child Loreal R. and derivatively neglected the child Samiha R.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the determination that she neglected the child Loreal R. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court’s findings are accorded great deference (see Matter of Negus T. [Fayme B.], 123 AD3d 836 [2014]; Matter of China C. [Alexis C.], 116 AD3d 953, 954 [2014]). The hearing evidence included the testimony of a police officer who, while searching an apartment pursuant to a search warrant, found a loaded gun on the floor within "arm’s length” of the child Loreal R. Under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly determined that the mother’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship created an imminent danger that the child’s physical, mental, and emotional health would be harmed (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Leah M. [Anthony M.], 81 AD3d 434 [2011]; Matter of Tajani B., 49 AD3d 874, 875 [2008]; Matter of Nicole H., 277 AD2d 380, 381 [2000]).

*691 Furthermore, the mother’s neglect of the child Loreal R. demonstrated a fundamental defect in her understanding of her parental duties sufficient to support the finding of derivative neglect with respect to the child Samiha R. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Taliya G. [Jeannie M.], 67 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7197, 144 A.D.3d 690, 40 N.Y.S.3d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-samiha-r-shante-r-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack