Matter of Shania D. (Lesley D.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Shania D. (Lesley D.)

136 A.D.3d 715, 24 N.Y.S.3d 696

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket2014-10614

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 715 (Matter of Shania D. (Lesley D.)) 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 Shania D. (Lesley D.), 136 A.D.3d 715, 24 N.Y.S.3d 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated November 6, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding inquest and upon a finding that the father did not neglect Shania D., dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, a finding is made that the respondent father neglected Shania D., and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing.

The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, alleging, inter alia, that the father neglected the subject child, Shania D. After a fact-finding inquest, the Family Court found that ACS failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shania D. was a neglected child and dismissed the petition with prejudice. ACS appeals.

To establish neglect of a child, the petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), (1) that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional *716 condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that 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 (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [¶] [i] [B]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; Matter of Brilliance B. [Sydell B.], 133 AD3d 652, 653 [2015]; Matter of Joselyn S. [Lizzeth E.], 133 AD3d 608 [2015]; Matter of Natalia C. [Christine C.], 133 AD3d 597, 598 [2015]). Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, under the facts of this case, a preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding inquest established that the father neglected Shania D. Accordingly, we reverse the order, reinstate the petition, make a finding that the father neglected Shania D., and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing and a disposition thereafter.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, 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 the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated November 6, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding inquest and upon a finding that the father did not neglect Shania D., dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, a finding is made that the respondent father neglected Shania D., and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing.

The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, alleging, inter alia, that the father neglected the subject child, Shania D. After a fact-finding inquest, the Family Court found that ACS failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shania D. was a neglected child and dismissed the petition with prejudice. ACS appeals.

To establish neglect of a child, the petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), (1) that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional *716 condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that 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 (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [¶] [i] [B]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; Matter of Brilliance B. [Sydell B.], 133 AD3d 652, 653 [2015]; Matter of Joselyn S. [Lizzeth E.], 133 AD3d 608 [2015]; Matter of Natalia C. [Christine C.], 133 AD3d 597, 598 [2015]). Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, under the facts of this case, a preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding inquest established that the father neglected Shania D. Accordingly, we reverse the order, reinstate the petition, make a finding that the father neglected Shania D., and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing and a disposition thereafter.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 715, 24 N.Y.S.3d 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-shania-d-lesley-d-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack