Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014

Matter of Jaquan F. (Alexis F.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 23, 2014 · Friedman, Acosta, Saxe, Gische, Kapnick

120 A.D.3d 1113; 993 N.Y.S.2d 18; 2014 NY Slip Op 06260; 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6218

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Vazquez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Gabrielle N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Derick L. (Catherine W.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Gabrielle N. (Jacqueline T.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Naqi T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re Naqi T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about May 6, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected the subject child, placed the child with petitioner agency until the next permanency hearing, and directed respondent to comply with certain conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*1114 A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that respondent neglected the special needs child by failing to properly supervise him and failing to attend numerous medical appointments. The court was within its discretion in crediting the testimony of petitioner’s medical expert (see Matter of Cerda, 114 AD2d 795, 795-796 [1st Dept 1985]).

A preponderance of the evidence also supports the court’s finding of neglect based on the child’s excessive absences from school. The record shows that between September 11, 2011 and February 7, 2012, the child missed 52 days of school. The court rejected respondent’s explanation that she missed numerous medical appointments for the child because of inclement weather and lateness, resulting in the child being unable to obtain a prescription for a new protective helmet that was required for him to attend school and causing his absence from school for more than two months until the new helmet was obtained, and there is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determination (see Matter of Aliyah B. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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