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: SHENEIKA V. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Gary V. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated July 9, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated May 11, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subject child, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Zakrya M., 18 A.D.3d 754, 795 N.Y.S.2d 683); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the determination that he neglected the subject child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Salvatore C., 6 A.D.3d 431, 432, 774 N.Y.S.2d 373; Matter of Sal D., 307 A.D.2d 261, 263, 762 N.Y.S.2d 265). Where, as here, issues of credibility are presented, the hearing court's findings must be accorded great deference (see Matter of Todd D., 9 A.D.3d 462, 780 N.Y.S.2d 180; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Kim G., 240 A.D.2d 664, 665, 659 N.Y.S.2d 501). The credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the father choked the child in response to a dispute over washing the dishes. While a single incident may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect, there was also proof of a pattern of the father's use of excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Anthony C., 201 A.D.2d 342, 607 N.Y.S.2d 324; Matter of C. Children, 183 A.D.2d 767, 583 N.Y.S.2d 499).
The father's remaining contentions 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: July 18, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)