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: ENRIQUE B., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Brunilda B., Respondent-Appellant, Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about September 15, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent neglected her son, Enrique B., placed the child with petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's finding that respondent had neglected her son by subjecting him to excessive corporal punishment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the credible testimony of the subject child during direct examination. The child's cross-examination testimony, given one month subsequent to his direct testimony, was properly discounted by Family Court based upon its observation of the child's erratic demeanor during cross-examination (see, Matter of Starchana B., 246 A.D.2d 595, 667 N.Y.S.2d 281).
Respondent's application to have her son subjected to psychological evaluation was, on balance, properly denied since petitioner's case did not rely on expert testimony and respondent had a full and fair opportunity to test the child's credibility by means of cross-examination (see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 N.Y.2d 1031, 576 N.Y.S.2d 77, 581 N.E.2d 1332). Also proper under all the circumstances was Family Court's exclusion of respondent from the courtroom during the testimony of her child, and since her attorney was allowed to remain, respondent was not deprived of due process (Matter of Falon P., 250 A.D.2d 497, 672 N.Y.S.2d 877). Finally, Family Court did not err when it denied respondent's request to call character witnesses, since the testimony of those witnesses would not have been admissible to establish that respondent had not subjected her son to excessive corporal punishment (see, Fanelli v. di Lorenzo, 187 A.D.2d 1004, 591 N.Y.S.2d 658) and respondent's professional reputation had, in any case, already been established.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 09, 1999
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)