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: ANAYA P. AND DOMINICK P. ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MICHAEL P., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent appeals in appeal No. 1 from an order of disposition entered following a determination that, inter alia, respondent abused one of the subject children. Respondent appeals in appeal No. 2 from a separate order of disposition entered following a determination that, inter alia, he abused three other children. In each appeal, respondent contends that, in making its findings, Family Court erred in giving collateral estoppel effect to his conviction in a related criminal action of seven counts of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law former § 130.96) and seven counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [4]). We reject that contention.
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue which has previously been decided against [it] in a proceeding in which [the party] had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455 [1985] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Joyce S. v Robert W.S., 142 AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 906 [2017]). Respondent does not dispute that he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues resolved against him in the criminal action, nor does he dispute that those issues are identical to the issues of his abuse of the children in these proceedings (see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James M., 83 NY2d 178, 182-183 [1994]; Matter of Yeshua G. [Anthony G.], 162 AD3d 1470, 1470 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 903 [2018]). Contrary to respondent's contention, the fact that these proceedings were commenced first does not prevent his criminal conviction, which was rendered before any determinations were made in these proceedings, from having a collateral estoppel effect (see e.g. Matter of Lea C. [Akil F.], 160 AD3d 724, 725-726 [2d Dept 2018]; Matter of Blima M. [Samuel M.], 150 AD3d 1006, 1007-1008 [2d Dept 2017]).
Entered: October 9, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 617
Decided: October 09, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)
Answer a few questions and get helpful next steps for your legal issue.