You are here: / / NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD...
,

NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD.

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found both mother and caretaker responsible for child abuse. It was not necessary to prove which of the two caused injury to the child:

The Family Court Act defines an abused child, inter alia, as a child 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 serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ 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 [such injury]” … . Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii) provides that a prima facie case of child abuse or neglect may be established by evidence of (1) an injury to a child that would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of the respondents, and (2) that the respondents were the caretakers of the child at the time the injury occurred … . “A parent who stands by while others inflict harm may be found responsible for that harm” … .

Section 1046(a)(ii) “authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” … . The statute also permits findings of abuse against more than one caretaker where multiple individuals had access to the child in the period in which the injury occurred … . In such cases, the petitioner is not required to establish which caregiver actually inflicted the injury or whether they did so together … . Matter of Zoey D. (Simona D.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01689, 2nd Dept 3-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD ABUSE, NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)/CHILD ABUSE (NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD)

You might also like
LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim
RESPONDENT MATERNAL UNCLE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DID NOT EFFECTIVELY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON THE SCAFFOLD BROKE; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN ITEMS WAS INSUFFICIENT; GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE... CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM NEGLECT PROCEEDING...