You are here: / / EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT...

EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, affirming Family Court, noted that even one instance of excessive corporal punishment is sufficient support for a neglect finding:

“Although parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child’s welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect” … Even “a single incident of excessive corporal punishment is sufficient to support a finding of neglect” … .

Here, contrary to the father’s contention, a preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the subject child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment … . The father admitted that on June 17, 2014, he hit the child once with a wooden ruler, and other credible evidence established that the child sustained visible marks and swelling on his left forearm as a result, and that this was not an isolated incident … . Matter of Tarelle J. (Walter J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05600, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

FAMILY LAW (EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT)/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT)/CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED.
SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION A PLASTIC SURGEON POSTED BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PERMISSION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE HIS PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT; THE PETITION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED PATERNITY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY A DNA TEST (SECOND DEPT).
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY.
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PUTATIVE FATHER’S REQUEST FOR A DNA PATERNITY TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY...