You are here: / / Neglect Finding Can Be Based Upon a Single Incident of Excessive Corporal...

Neglect Finding Can Be Based Upon a Single Incident of Excessive Corporal Punishment

The Second Department noted that a finding of neglect can be based upon a single incident of excessive corporal punishment:

Neglect may be established by even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment … . The Family Court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference … .Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect of the child Shervon M., based on excessive corporal punishment, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]…). The Family Court’s finding that the appellant engaged in excessive corporal punishment when he struck the child Shervon M. several times with a belt, causing raised red marks on her arm and legs, is supported by the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing. Shervon’s out-of-court statements that the appellant struck her with a belt were sufficiently corroborated by the caseworker’s observations of Shervon’s injuries and the appellant’s admission to the caseworker that he had struck Shervon with a belt in the past (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]…).  Matter of Nurridin B, 2-14 NY Slip Op 02431, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION; THEREFORE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
Town Board Is Not a Necessary Party In an Action Against the Town—Acts of the Town Board Under Statutory Authority Are the Acts of the Town—Court’s Power to Join a Necessary Party Sua Sponte Noted (Not Properly Exercised Here)
DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS LISTED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, IS THE CONTROLLING LOCATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Remarks Made In the Course of Litigation Privileged Mother’s Interference With Relationship Between Father and Child Warranted...