You are here: / / Relatively Low Degree of Corroboration Required to Admit Child’s...
,

Relatively Low Degree of Corroboration Required to Admit Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Re: Abuse or Neglect

The Third Department, in a custody proceeding, explained the level of corroboration required to render a child’s out-of-court statements admissible:

Both the mother and the attorney for the children contend that the testimony of the father’s psychiatrist … concerning the older child’s out-of-court statements are inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. A child’s out-of-court statements are admissible in a custody dispute if the statements relate to abuse or neglect, provided that such statements are corroborated by other evidence … . “The degree of corroboration required is relatively low” … , and the hearing court “is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether there is sufficient corroboration” … . Heather B v Daniel B, 2015 NY Slip Op 01506, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

/by
You might also like
Landlord With Notice of a Tenant’s Dog’s Vicious Propensities May Be Liable to the Injured Plaintiff
ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) BY RELYING ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE HEARING EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPEND THE PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Not Entitled to Benefits For Time Spent Working Out of House 
THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
Defendant’s Statement that He Was Thinking About Talking to an Attorney, Coupled With the Officer’s Interpretation of that Statement as a Request for Counsel, Rendered Invalid Defendant’s Subsequent Agreement to Speak with the Officer without an Attorney Present

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Lease Provision Allowing the Landlord to Recover Attorney’s Fees in an... Insufficient Foundation for Introduction of Grand Jury Testimony as Past Recollection...