From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kodjo T. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Paige T.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 15, 2020
189 A.D.3d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12656 Dkt. No. NN-01152/18 Case No. 2019-3676

12-15-2020

IN RE PAIGE T., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kodjo T., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cynthia Kao of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.


George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cynthia Kao of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.

Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Singh, Kennedy, JJ.

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2019, which determined, after a hearing, that respondent father neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father's acts of repeatedly hitting the child with a hairbrush causing lash marks on her forearm constituted excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Michele S. [Yi S.], 157 A.D.3d 551, 552, 67 N.Y.S.3d 628 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904, 2018 WL 1957523 [2018] ). The child's out-of-court statements concerning that incident were corroborated by the testimony of the school's social worker who observed the marks on the child the day after the incident. In addition, three witnesses testified that the child had reported other incidents of corporal punishment (see Matter of Liza F. [ Bon F.], 177 A.D.3d 570, 571, 111 N.Y.S.3d 532 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The court's credibility determinations are supported by the record. Even a single incident of excessive corporal punishment can support a neglect finding ( id. ).

The argument by the attorney for the child that the petition should be dismissed because the aid of the court was not needed is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit ( Family Ct. Act § 1051[c] ; [a]; Matter of Josee Louise L.H. [DeCarla L.], 121 A.D.3d 492, 994 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 175263 [2015] ).


Summaries of

Kodjo T. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Paige T.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 15, 2020
189 A.D.3d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Kodjo T. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Paige T.)

Case Details

Full title:IN RE PAIGE T., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kodjo T.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 15, 2020

Citations

189 A.D.3d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
133 N.Y.S.3d 813

Citing Cases

L. C. v. D. P.

[3] The record further supports the finding that appellant inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the…

In re Yarelis E.

The father did not make a motion to vacate the finding of neglect pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c)…