Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

In re Samuel D.-C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 15, 2007

40 A.D.3d 853; 837 N.Y.S.2d 170

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Maliah B. (Angel B.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Harper W. (Haley W.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Benjamin S. S. (Randy S.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Kyle D. ( (Dwayne D.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Nah-Ki B. Administration for Children's Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Kailynn I. (NYC Family Court 2016)
Matter of Milagros A.W. (John R.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of I.A. (Devona H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re Chanyae S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Serenity S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Melissa O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Serenity P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Tristan R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)

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 child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated October 5, 2006, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition, with prejudice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, a finding is made that the father neglected the child Samuel D.-C., and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a dispositional hearing in accordance herewith.

A “neglected child” is defined as one “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [the] parent... to exercise a minimum degree of care ... in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). “Although deference should be accorded to the Family Court’s appraisal of the credibility of witnesses ... we nevertheless are free to make our own credibility assessments and, where proper, make a finding of . . . neglect based upon the record before us” (Matter of Peter R., 8 AD3d 576, 579 [2004]; see Matter of Marc A., 301 AD2d 595, 596 [2003]; Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v Carmen J., 209 AD2d 525, 527 [1994]). Upon review of this record, we conclude that the petitioner satisfactorily demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Samuel D.-C. was a neglected child (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tam*854mie Z., 66 NY2d 1 [1985]). The record clearly shows that the father left the three-week-old child unattended in an unheated vehicle for approximately 15 minutes. Even the father’s version of the facts acknowledges that he was outside the car on a November evening with the heat turned off with the baby completely covered with a blanket. These circumstances depict lack of attention to the special needs of a newborn and, standing alone, constitute neglect. Accordingly, the Family Court improperly dismissed the petition.

In view of our finding of neglect, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, to fashion an appropriate disposition. Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Lifson and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.