From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Tevon C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 2001
280 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 16, 2001.

February 5, 2001.

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Sydney E. appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated November 16, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that he had abused the child, Tevon C., directed that the child be placed with the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 16, 1998.

Daniel Gartenstein, Red Hook, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Kenneth Rabb and Virginia Geiss of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, a preponderance of the credible evidence established that he abused the child, Tevon C. While in the appellant's care, the child sustained severe and inadequately explained second-degree burns over 40% of his body which required three months of hospitalization (see, Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii); Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244). "The burns were of such a degree and nature that they would not ordinarily have occurred absent the appellant's act or omission" (Matter of Commr. of Social Servs. of the City of New York, o/b/o Jullian L. v. Hyacinth, 210 A.D.2d 329, 331). The finding of abuse is additionally warranted based upon the appellant's failure to seek prompt medical attention for the child which, according to the appellant's own expert witness, only served to worsen the child's condition (see, Matter of Quincy Y., ___ A.D.2d ___ [1st Dept., Oct. 26, 2000]).

The appellant's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Tevon C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 2001
280 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Tevon C

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF TEVON C. (ANONYMOUS). COMMISSIONER OF THE ADMINISTRATION…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 178

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Benjamin L

Once a prima facie case of child abuse has been proven, the burden of explanation or of going forward shifts…

In re Kaiden W.

Id. To satisfy their burden, a respondent would need to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for…