Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981

In re Margaret W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 6, 1981

83 A.D.2d 557; 441 N.Y.S.2d 17; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14847

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Fawn S. (NYC Family Court 1985)
In re Jeshaun R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Dave D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re R./B. Children (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re Karl L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re Kathleen OO. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
In re James A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
In re Amanda LL. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re Sandra S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re Tyson G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
In re Hand (NYC Family Court 1988)
In re Nicole V. (N.Y. 1987)
In re Christina F. (NYC Family Court 1987)
In re Arrigo (New York Family Court 1986)
Dutchess County Department of Social Services v. Bertha C. (NYC Family Court 1986)
In re Cindy JJ. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
In re Nicole S. (NYC Family Court 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Mazzeo, J., on the disposition; Weiner, J., on the fact finding), dated June 11,1980, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined, inter alia, that the child was sexually abused by her father. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Testimony by witnesses relating the child’s previous statements alleging that her father had forced her to engage in acts of sexual intercourse with him were corroborated by admissions made by her father that he had committed the acts charged (see Family Ct Act, § 1012, suhd [e], par [iii]; § 1046, subd [a], par [vi]). The father’s subsequent denial of having committed the acts charged raised an issue of credibility that was resolved by the trier of facts, who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses before him and assess their credibility. We find no reason to disturb this finding on appeal. Accordingly, the charge of child abuse was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.