Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: FRANTRAE W. and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Fred W., Respondent-Appellant, Michelle W., Respondent, Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 24, 2006, which found respondent father to have neglected and abused the children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Despite the serious nature of the charges, the Family Court's credibility determinations, based on sharply divergent testimony, are entitled to deference (see Matter of Benjamin L., 9 A.D.3d 153, 155, 780 N.Y.S.2d 8 [2004] ). The record supports the court's findings that appellant abused his older daughter by having sexual intercourse with her in 2003 and 2004. His argument that the older daughter's testimony was received without corroboration is not apt, since the court did not rely exclusively on her out-of-court testimony (see Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi] ). In any event, the older daughter's testimony was corroborated by that of a treating social worker, and in certain details by respondent stepmother. The record also supports the court's findings that appellant inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the older daughter.
The older daughter's recantation did not invalidate her original testimony outright (see Matter of Richard SS., 29 A.D.3d 1118, 1123, 815 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2005] ). At most, it raised credibility questions as to her testimony (see Matter of Kayla N., 41 A.D.3d 920, 922-923, 837 N.Y.S.2d 424 [2007] ), and the record supports the Family Court's resolution of those questions against crediting the recantation or disregarding the original testimony, based on findings that were made after the court carefully evaluated the child's sworn testimony (see Matter of Stephanie R., 21 A.D.3d 417, 799 N.Y.S.2d 804 [2005] ). Appellant's arguments as to the court's evidentiary rulings are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)