You are here: / / HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT...
,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the neglect finding, determined the hearsay statements of the alleged victim were not corroborated:

The finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. “Unsworn out-of-court statements of the victim may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect” … . Here, the child’s out-of-court statement made during his videotaped interview with an investigator from the the Child Advocacy Center, that respondent bit him on the right shoulder during a January 2017 incident, was not sufficiently corroborated … . Although medical findings confirmed that the child sustained injuries that were consistent with a bite mark, those findings in no way connected those marks to respondent. Further, there is no dispute that the child told respondent that he was going to make false allegations against her to the Administration for Children’s Services while the fact-finding hearing was pending, rendering his overall credibility quite impaired. Matter of Jaylin S. (Jasmine E.T.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05606, First Dept 10-8-20

 

You might also like
“Sole Proximate Cause” Defense Not Demonstrated
Application to File Late Notice of Claim (30 Days Late) Should Have Been Granted—Respondents Had Notice of the Incident and Short Delay Did Not Affect Ability to Investigate
COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED OF JURORS WHETHER THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT NOT BEING PAID BY THEIR EMPLOYERS DURING JURY DUTY WOULD AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CRACK IN A BASKETBALL COURT (FIRST DEPT).
Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE AREA WERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Where Equitable Relief Described in “Sole Remedy Clause” is Impossible, Monetary Damages Are Available
Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless Facility Was Foreseeable

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEALED THE ENTIRE COURT RECORD, REDACTION IS APPROPRIATE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD) HAS BEEN...