In re Stephanie R., 21 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Stephanie R., 21 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.) (nyappdiv, 2016-04-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The Family Court did not err in rejecting Eyllen I.M.’s out-of-court recantation, particularly in light of the expert testimony that it was a false recantation, and that Eyllen I.M. may have been pressured to recant because the appellant was placed in jail after her disclosure (see Matter of Melody H. [Dwayne H.], 121 AD3d at 687; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 417-418 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Elijah P. (Dwight J.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, the error was harmless, as the appellant was able to enter into evidence a portion of the petitioner’s case record, which contained a summary of Sapphire P.’s interview with the police detective, including the inconsistent statements identified by the appellant (see CPLR 2002; Matter of Delehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 AD3d 668, 670 [2012]; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 417-418 [2005]; Matter of Christopher L., 19 AD3d 597, 598 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Justin R. (Gilbert R.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, since the petition did not allege that the father neglected the children by failing to complete the paperwork necessary for the subject child Joseph to be placed in a special private school at the start of the 2012/2013 school year, and the petition was not properly amended in accordance with Family Court Act § 1051 (b), the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the subject children on that ground was improper (see Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562 [2006]; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]; see also Matter of Vallery P. [Jondalla P.], 106 AD3d 575 [2013]; Ma…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Crystal S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Given that the petition was not amended in accordance with Family Court Act § 1051 (b) to include this allegation, the Family Court’s finding that the mother neglected Crystal by her use of physical force was improper (see Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Taylor P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in conforming the child neglect petition to the proof of child abuse adduced during the fact-finding hearing, and providing the parents with an opportunity to answer the amended allegations of abuse (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of LeVonn G., 20 AD3d 530, 531 [2005]; cf. Matter of Latifah C., 34 AD3d 798, 800 [2006]; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Blaize F.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The petition did not allege direct neglect as to these two children nor was any amendment of the allegations of the petition to conform to the proof sought or authorized (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; Matter of Latifah C., 34 AD3d 798, 800 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]; Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Joseph O.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Since the petition failed to allege that the father neglected Joseph due to excessive alcohol consumption resulting in physical and emotional harm to Joseph, and was not amended in accordance with Family Court Act § 1051 (b), the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected Joseph by his excessive consumption of alcohol was improper (see Matter of Stephanie R., 21 AD3d 417, 418 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Stephanie R., an Infant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent Orlando G., Also Known as Orlando R., (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Samantha R., an Infant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent Orlando G., Also Known as Orlando R., (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 8, 2005.
21 A.D.3d 417
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8424
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), entered October 4, 2004, as, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused Samantha R. and derivatively abused Stephanie R.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof finding that the father derivatively abused Stephanie R., and substituting therefor a provision finding that he derivatively neglected Stephanie R.; as so modified, the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court erred in refusing to permit the mother to testify about statements made by his child, Samantha R., in which she recanted her allegations of sexual abuse (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]). However, the error was harmless because the Family Court admitted similar testimony by Samantha’s therapist and was aware of the child’s efforts to change her account of the incident. Moreover, that evidence did not undermine the credibility of Samantha’s initial statement to such an extent as would require reversal (see Mat[*418] ter of Lisa S. v William S., 187 AD2d 435 [1992]). The father’s own statement to the police tracked and corroborated Samantha’s initial allegations. Thus, the Family Court was entitled to credit Samantha’s corroborated statement to the police, and its finding of abuse should not be disturbed (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Sharonda S., 301 AD2d 532 [2003]).

The Family Court’s finding of derivative abuse as to Stephanie R. was supported by the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Jessica S., 18 AD3d 562 [2005]; Matter of Desiree C., 7 AD3d 522 [2004]). However, as the petition alleged derivative neglect and was not amended in accordance with Family Court Act § 1051 (b), the finding of derivative abuse was procedurally improper (see Matter of Shawniece E., 110 AD2d 900 [1985]; Matter of Terry S., 55 AD2d 689 [1976]). However, since a finding that Stephanie R. was derivatively neglected by her father was also supported by the evidence (see Matter of Darnell Mc., 230 AD2d 733 [1996]; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Douglas E., 191 AD2d 694 [1993]), we modify the order of fact-finding and disposition. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.