Matter of Valentino R. (Dina R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Valentino R. (Dina R.)

128 A.D.3d 562, 10 N.Y.S.3d 44

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

DecidedMay 21, 2015

Docket15176

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 562 (Matter of Valentino R. (Dina 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 Valentino R. (Dina R.), 128 A.D.3d 562, 10 N.Y.S.3d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the mother neglected the subject children by failing to protect them from the father’s domestic violence against her (see Family Court Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see also Matter of Niyah E. [Edwin E.], 71 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2010]). Police testimony showed that the father threatened the family with a knife and a cleaver and that the mother ran into the bathroom with the children to escape the assault. The officer observed damage to the walls and bathroom door from the cleaver and saw sheetrock dust on the knives. The progress notes demonstrated that one of the children expressed a fear of the father, which was sufficient to show that his emotional health was placed at risk by the mother’s failure to act to enforce the orders of protection on behalf of her and the children (see Matter of Madison M. [Nathan M.], 123 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2014]). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of the mother’s claim that she believed the orders of protection had expired (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

The record does not reflect that the mother requested an adjournment to permit her counsel to prepare, and she specifically denied that she wished to proceed pro se. The mother’s claim that the court relied on evidence not set forth in the amended petition was not preserved, and in any event, the evidence presented was necessary to determine whether the mother’s judgment in permitting the father to live in the apart *563 ment, given his history of domestic violence, was reasonable. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, found that respondent mother neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the mother neglected the subject children by failing to protect them from the father’s domestic violence against her (see Family Court Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see also Matter of Niyah E. [Edwin E.], 71 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2010]). Police testimony showed that the father threatened the family with a knife and a cleaver and that the mother ran into the bathroom with the children to escape the assault. The officer observed damage to the walls and bathroom door from the cleaver and saw sheetrock dust on the knives. The progress notes demonstrated that one of the children expressed a fear of the father, which was sufficient to show that his emotional health was placed at risk by the mother’s failure to act to enforce the orders of protection on behalf of her and the children (see Matter of Madison M. [Nathan M.], 123 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2014]). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of the mother’s claim that she believed the orders of protection had expired (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

The record does not reflect that the mother requested an adjournment to permit her counsel to prepare, and she specifically denied that she wished to proceed pro se. The mother’s claim that the court relied on evidence not set forth in the amended petition was not preserved, and in any event, the evidence presented was necessary to determine whether the mother’s judgment in permitting the father to live in the apart *563 ment, given his history of domestic violence, was reasonable. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 562, 10 N.Y.S.3d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-valentino-r-dina-r-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack