Matter of Lavountae A., 908 N.E.2d 904 (NY 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Lavountae A., 908 N.E.2d 904 (NY 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Serenity P. (nyappdiv, 2010-06-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In re Serenity P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court was entitled to draw “the strongest inference [against her] that the opposing evidence permits” based on her failure to testify at the fact-finding hearing (Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]; see Matter of Lavountae A., 57 AD3d 1382 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 832 [2009]; Matter of Jenny N, 262 AD2d 951 [1999]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lavountae A. and Others, Infants. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Respondent; Laticia A., Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
May 7, 2009.
908 N.E.2d 904
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of counsel), for appellant., Daniel M. DeLaus, Jr., County Attorney, Rochester (Paul N. Humphrey of counsel), for respondent., Susan B. Marris, Manlius, Law Guardian.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Family Court entered a determination of neglect based, in part, on a finding that respondent mother had a drug problem that necessitated treatment and that placed her children in imminent risk of harm. The court further observed that she had failed to follow through with two drug treatment programs despite her previous acknowledgment of a drug problem and her repeated promises to comply with treatment directives. Since the Appellate Division affirmed the neglect determination, we may disturb it only if it is not supported by sufficient proof in the record. Because we cannot say that there is no valid line of reasoning that could lead a rational factfinder to the decision reached in this case, we affirm.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.