You are here: / / Abuse Not Demonstrated; Conflicting Expert Testimony
,

Abuse Not Demonstrated; Conflicting Expert Testimony

In upholding Family Court’s determination that petitioner had not demonstrated the child (Sincerity) was abused when the child was in the custody of the mother, in the face of expert testimony the child suffered forceful blunt trauma within 24 hours of death, the Second Department explained:

The Family Court Act defines an “[a]bused child,” inter alia, as “a child less than eighteen years of age whose parent or other person legally responsible for his [or her] care (i) inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon such child physical injury by other than accidental means which causes or creates a substantial risk of death [or] (ii) creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of physical injury to such child by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause death” (Family Ct Act § 1012[e][i], [ii]). The petitioner may establish a prima facie case of abuse through a method of proof “closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” (…see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][ii]…). If the petitioner establishes a prima facie case of abuse, “the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability,” although the burden of proof always remains with the petitioner … .

The Family Court’s assessment of witnesses’ credibility is accorded deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record … . Where there is conflicting testimony and the matter primarily turns on an assessment of witnesses’ credibility, we accord great weight to the Family Court’s factual findings … . * * *

The mother’s expert witness, the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Sincerity’s body, testified that based upon a microscopic examination of the brain injury, Sincerity sustained the brain injury a few days to one week prior to her death. Notably, the petitioner did not present evidence establishing that Sincerity was exclusively in the mother’s care for a period of time greater than 24 hours before her death. Moreover, the forensic pathologist testified that she could not determine whether Sincerity died from blunt force trauma to the head or by accidental asphyxiation caused by being placed to sleep on her side and wrapped in a blanket on the mother’s futon. Matter of David T…, 2013 NY Slip Op 07049, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor
Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense
THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN OF DECEDENT’S PERSON AND PROPERTY; THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CPLR 408 IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE TERMINATED SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THE EDUCATION LAW; ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NOTIFIED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUPERINTENDENT AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS AWARE OF THE ACTION, FAILURE TO SERVE THE BOARD WAS A FATAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Pronounce the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Survives Waiver of Appeal and Requires Vacation of the Sentences and Remittal
BANK WAS ENTITLED TO A LIEN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AT THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did Not... Affirmative Defense Waived by Absence from Initial Answer May Be Included in...