Peter S. v. Cheryl A. S.

190 A.D.2d 1038, 593 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1248
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1038 (Peter S. v. Cheryl A. S.) 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
Peter S. v. Cheryl A. S., 190 A.D.2d 1038, 593 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding to determine visitation rights pursuant to Family Court Act § 651, the Law Guardian for the children appeals on their behalf from an order which resolved the visitation dispute in favor of the mother and limited the father to supervised visitation with the children, based on the court’s finding that he had sexually abused his young daughter. In making that finding, the court relied on the children’s out-of-court statements to their mother and to various social workers, the mother’s observation of sex play between the children, and the lack of apparent motive on the mother’s part to falsify the accusation.

[1039]*1039We conclude that the Law Guardian failed to preserve her challenge to the court’s consideration of the children’s statements. The Law Guardian failed to object to numerous items of hearsay and double hearsay and indeed repeatedly elicited such improper testimony herself. Additionally, we reject the Law Guardian’s contention that there was insufficient corroboration of the children’s statements to warrant a finding of sexual abuse. In our view, Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi), which by its terms is expressly applicable to article 10 proceedings, is not applicable to this article 6 proceeding. In any event, even assuming that corroboration is required, we conclude that the observations by the mother corroborated the hearsay statements of the children. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J. — Visitation.) Present —Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Thomas M.F. v. Lori A.A.
63 A.D.3d 1667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.
2005 NY Slip Op 25220 (Kings Family Court, 2005)
Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.
8 Misc. 3d 807 (NYC Family Court, 2005)
Stacey L.B. v. Kimberly R.L.
12 A.D.3d 1124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Daniel R. v. Noel R.
195 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 A.D.2d 1038, 593 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-s-v-cheryl-a-s-nyappdiv-1993.