Matter of Sapphire G. (Anonymous) (Samarj L. G. (Anonymous))

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Sapphire G. (Anonymous) (Samarj L. G. (Anonymous))

136 A.D.3d 687, 23 N.Y.S.3d 912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 2016·No. 2014-07576·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Daniel Turbow, J.), dated July 3, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject child.

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

In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the presentment agency alleged that the subject child had been put at imminent risk of harm by the father. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the subject child by committing an act of domestic violence against the mother in the child’s presence. Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that he neglected the child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Michael G.C. [Michael C.], 103 AD3d 890 [2013]; Matter of Briana F. [Oswaldo F.], 69 AD3d 718 [2010]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063 [2007]).

Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Daniel Turbow, J.), dated July 3, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject child.

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

In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the presentment agency alleged that the subject child had been put at imminent risk of harm by the father. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the father neglected the subject child by committing an act of domestic violence against the mother in the child’s presence. Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that he neglected the child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Michael G.C. [Michael C.], 103 AD3d 890 [2013]; Matter of Briana F. [Oswaldo F.], 69 AD3d 718 [2010]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063 [2007]).

Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Matter of Sapphire G. (Anonymous) (Samarj L. G. (Anonymous)), 136 A.D.3d 687, 23 N.Y.S.3d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

136 A.D.3d 687 (Matter of Sapphire G. (Anonymous) (Samarj L. G. (Anonymous))) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related