You are here: / / Excessive Corporal Punishment Constituted Neglect and Derivative Negl...

Excessive Corporal Punishment Constituted Neglect and Derivative Neglect

In affirming Family Court’s determination that excessive corporal punishment constituted neglect and derivative neglect, the Second Department wrote:

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 (…Penal Law § 35.10; Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i][B]). The Family Court’s finding of neglect as to the child Briana M., based upon the mother’s use of excessive corporal punishment, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]). The evidence demonstrated that the mother struck then-eight-year-old Briana with a belt numerous times, causing marks on her back and arms … .

The evidence, which established that the mother inflicted excessive corporal punishment on Briana, was sufficient to support the Family Court’s determination that the children Matthew M. and Alexis M. were derivatively neglected… . Matter of Matthew M (Fatima M), 2013 NY slip Op 05573, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH OPEN TRAPDOOR IN LEASED PREMISES, DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, NO BASIS FOR LIABILITY OF BUILDING OWNER.
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian
PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (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

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Established No Article 78 Review Where Petitioner Defaulted