From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Danielle L

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 2003
307 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06381

Argued June 6, 2003.

July 14, 2003.

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered May 23, 2002, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he abused the child Danielle L. and derivatively neglected the child Jaclyn L., and released the children to the custody of the mother under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services.

Stephen A. Grossman, Sag Harbor, N.Y. (Ira Simon of counsel), for appellant.

Robert J. Cimino, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary L. Rosenthal of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is dismissed.

By petition dated May 30, 2000, the petitioner alleged that the appellant father abused and/or neglected his then 16-year old daughter Danielle, and derivatively neglected her younger sister, Jaclyn. A fact-finding hearing was conducted. Notwithstanding a court-ordered subpoena, Danielle refused to testify at the fact-finding hearing.

In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving abuse or nelgect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i]). Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi), "previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence, but if uncorroborated, such statements shall not be sufficient to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect." The out-of-court statements may be corroborated by "[a]ny other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements" (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]; see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112). However, there is a threshold of reliability that the evidence must meet ( see Matter of Zachariah VV., 262 A.D.2d 719) . Moreover, "repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate the child's prior account of it" ( Matter of Francis Charles W., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 123).

Under the facts of this case, the Family Court erred in finding that Danielle's hearsay statements were sufficiently corroborated. In the absence of sufficent corroboration, the petition must be dismissed.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Danielle L

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 2003
307 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Danielle L

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DANIELLE L. (ANONYMOUS). SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 14, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 285

Citing Cases

In re Iyonte G

The out-of-court statements may be corroborated by "[a]ny other evidence tending to support the reliability…

Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Richard D.E. (In re Jada K.E.)

f proving abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). To satisfy…