Matter of Jaclyn

10 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Jaclyn P

    86 N.Y.2d 875 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 35 times

    Family Court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, declaring simply that "the evidence was absolutely even." On appeal, however, Family Court's order was reversed by the Appellate Division which, after evaluating the testimony of each witness ( 179 A.D.2d 646), concluded that Layish's testimony, along with the other evidence, provided a sufficient ground for a finding of abuse. The court found Layish's testimony "highly reliable" and respondent's evidence "unpersuasive" ( 179 A.D.2d, at 651, 652), and determined that the evidence preponderated in favor of the presentment agency (see, Family Ct Act § 1046; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3).

  2. Matter of Rhianna R

    256 A.D.2d 1184 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Memorandum: Family Court's determination that respondent sexually abused his daughter Rhianna ( see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]) and that, as a consequence, his other daughter Nicole is a neglected child within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 Fam. Ct. Act (f) (i) (B) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). "Unsworn out-of-court statements of the victim may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect" ( Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117-118, citing Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). The out-of-court statements of Rhianna were amply corroborated by her unsworn but cross-examined testimony taken in camera ( see, Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 535), by a physical examination and by the testimony of two pediatricians and a social worker ( see, Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 N.Y.2d 875, 878, affg 179 A.D.2d 646, cert denied sub nom. Papa v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 516 U.S. 1093; Matter of Nicole V., supra, at 121; Matter of Jessica N., 234 A.D.2d 970, 971, appeal dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 1008; Matter of David DD., 204 A.D.2d 791, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 813). Additionally, the consistency of Rhianna's statements to three witnesses describing respondent's sexual conduct enhances the reliability of those out-of-court statements ( see, Matter of Jessica N., supra, at 972; Matter of Keith C., 226 A.D.2d 369, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 807; Matter of Jaclyn P., supra, 179 A.D.2d, at 651). Although respondent presented evidence in rebuttal, such evidence merely presented questions of fact for resolution by the court (see, Matter of Breann B., 185 A.D.2d 711; Matter of Elrheihem T., 185 A.D.2d 626).

  3. Matter of Brandon

    193 A.D.2d 835 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 13 times

    ary to respondent's assertions on appeal, we conclude that Family Court's finding that respondent was guilty of abusing and neglecting Brandon and Cara was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the only evidence that respondent sexually abused Brandon and Cara consisted of Brandon's out-of-court statements and actions which, by themselves, are insufficient to support a finding of abuse (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Mary R.], 175 A.D.2d 284, 285), "[a]ny other evidence tending to support the reliability of the [out-of-court] statements * * * shall be sufficient corroboration" (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; see, Matter of Michelle I., 189 A.D.2d 998, 999-1000; Matter of Alena D., 125 A.D.2d 753, 754, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 605). Significantly, validation testimony from experts investigating allegations of sexual abuse is sufficient to corroborate the abused child's statements (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120-122; Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646, 647; see also, Matter of Danielle YY., 188 A.D.2d 894, 895-896). Here, Elizabeth Kelly, a caseworker with the Dutchess County Department of Social Services, testified that during an interview with Brandon, he stated that respondent touched and held Brandon's penis "a lot of times" and that on some occasions "[D]addy peed in [Brandon's] mouth".

  4. In re Matter of Kalifa K

    37 A.D.3d 1180 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Here, however, no corroborating evidence was offered. Validation testimony from a witness with expertise in child abuse may serve as sufficient corroboration if such witness testifies that the child's behavior is consistent with the behavior of children who have been abused ( see Nicole V, 71 NY2d at 120-121; Matter of Shawn P., 266 AD2d 907, 908, lv denied 94 NY2d 760; Matter of Jessica DD., 234 AD2d 785, 786, lv denied 89 NY2d 812; Matter of Heather P., 233 AD2d 912, 913; see also Matter of Jaclyn P, 179 AD2d 646, 648, affd 86 NY2d 875, cert denied sub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 516 US 1093; Matter of Lisa Z., 267 AD2d 800, 802). Here, however, none of petitioner's witnesses gave testimony establishing her expertise in child sexual abuse or even child abuse, and none discussed symptoms or behaviors commonly seen in victims of child sexual abuse by way of comparison to symptoms or behaviors displayed by Kalifa.

  5. In the Matter of Christopher L

    19 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 37 times

    Ordered that the order dated June 7, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. A child's out-of-court statements relating to an allegation of abuse may, if adequately corroborated by evidence tending to establish their reliability, support a finding of abuse ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532; Matter of Frank F., 12 AD3d 601; Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 AD2d 646, 647, affd 86 NY2d 875, cert denied sub nom. Papa v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 516 US 1093; cf. Matter of Danielle L., 307 AD2d 294). The rule requiring corroboration is flexible, and any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child's statements may be sufficient corroboration ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124; Matter of Alena D., 125 AD2d 753).

  6. Matter of Child Protective Services

    260 A.D.2d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    We reverse. The Family Court's conclusion lacks a sound basis in the record (see, Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646, affd 86 N.Y.2d 875, cert denied sub nom. Papa v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 516 U.S. 1093). Given the documented history of abuse in this case, the perceived disruptive effect on the family unit resulting from the petitioner's involvement does not negate the clear need for continued supervision. The Family Court abused its discretion in accepting without consequence the respondent's failure to complete the mandated sexual offenders treatment program (see, Matter of Sadie K, 249 A.D.2d 640). Moreover, the Family Court improvidently relied upon the opinion of a purported expert, who demonstrated a marked unfamiliarity with the history and circumstances of this case.

  7. In re of Jessica N. v. Dep't Soc. Serv

    234 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 9 times

    We also note that, although respondent's medical expert disagreed with the conclusions of the examining physicians that the child had been sexually abused, she acknowledged that she could not reach her own conclusion without personally examining the child and she did not disagree with the physical findings of the examining physicians. Moreover, the fact that the child gave consistent statements to three witnesses describing the sexual conduct of her father enhances the reliability of her out-of-court statements (see, Matter of Keith C, 226 AD2d 369, lv denied 88 NY2d 807; Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 AD2d 646, 651, affd 86 NY2d 875, cert denied sub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., "US", 116 S Ct 816; Matter of Starr H. [appeal No. 2], 156 AD2d 1025). Thus, we find that the evidence establishes that respondent sexually abused his daughter and that, under the circumstances, respondent's stepdaughters are neglected children (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see, Matter of David DD., supra, at 793; Matter of Julissa II, 217 AD2d 743, 744; Matter of James P., 137 AD2d 461, 464).

  8. Matter of J.S

    215 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    [a] [i]). The fact that the children were found to have chlamydia in their vaginal and anal tracts was prima facie evidence of sexual abuse (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 244), and their out-of-court statements were properly admitted (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]) and corroborated by a number of sources, including the testimony of the court appointed validator and social worker and others regarding the children's inappropriate knowledge and acting out of sexual behaviors (see, Matter of Laura W., 160 A.D.2d 585, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 706). As testified to by the court appointed validator, the consistent repetition of the facts surrounding appellant's abuse by children of such a tender age, over a period of time, to a number of different individuals is significant and inconsistent with appellant's assertion that the children were either lying or being coached (see, Matter of Nicole V., supra, at 121-122; Matter of Estina W., 181 A.D.2d 554; Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646). Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

  9. Matter of Tiffany

    205 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 10 times

    Moreover, she could not rule out the possibility of burns although she believed that a more likely cause was by the skin being rubbed against an abrasive surface, with the lesions resulting from some traumatic force. While great deference is to be accorded the credibility determinations of the trier of fact (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776), in the exercise of our own assessment of credibility (see, Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Social Servs. [Kathryn B.], 186 A.D.2d 136, 137-138; Matter of Jaclyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646, 651), we find the testimony of Dr. Ozuah more compelling than that of the respondents' expert. Assuming arguendo, that this expert's testimony was the more credible as the Family Court found, the court still erred in not entering findings of abuse since the child's lesions had to have resulted from some behavior on the part of the caretakers.

  10. Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Soc. Serv

    186 A.D.2d 136 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    Under the circumstances, the determination to conduct an in-camera interview with the child without consideration of her age and emotional maturity constituted an improvident exercise of discretion which precluded the use of her sworn testimony to establish a prima facie case of abuse without the need for additional corroborative evidence (cf., Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 534). We of course are empowered to make our own assessment of the credibility of the testimony, and have in certain cases made a finding of abuse on the basis of the record before us (see, Matter of Jacklyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646). However, we decline to make a finding of abuse in this case, and instead remit the matter to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing before a different Judge. [As amended by order entered Dec. 21, 1992.] Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.