Lydia K., Matter of
| Decision Date | 15 July 1985 |
| Citation | 491 N.Y.S.2d 752,112 A.D.2d 306 |
| Parties | In the Matter of LYDIA K. (Anonymous). Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lucille K. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Spiros A. Tsimbinos, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Francis F. Caputo and Arnold Stream, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Lenore Gittis, New York City (Carol Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), Law Guardian.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1984, which, upon a fact-finding determination of the same court, made after a hearing, adjudged the child to be abused and ordered her placed with the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services for a period of 18 months. 123 Misc.2d 41, 472 N.Y.S.2d 576.
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this child protective proceeding the only evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing tending to prove that the child in question was abused were two statements to that effect made by her shortly after the alleged abuse took place, which she later recanted. Under Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) such out-of-court statements are admissible during the fact-finding hearing, but are not sufficient to support a determination of abuse absent corroboration. Although Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) does not limit the corroboration requirement to otherwise inadmissible out-of-court statements, if the statements would be admissible without the benefit of that section as an exception to the hearsay rule, there is no reason to require corroboration. The statement made by the child to a paramedic approximately 10 to 15 minutes after she "fell" eight stories was properly admitted at Family Court as a spontaneous declaration (see, People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 160 N.E.2d 26, cert. denied 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620). Since spontaneous declarations are admissible in evidence because of their inherent reliability and superior trustworthiness (see, Fisch, New York Evidence § 100 [2d ed]; Richardson, Evidence § 281 [10th ed, Prince] ), the Family Court's holding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicole V., Matter of
...statements are hearsay and the statute requires some further evidence to establish their reliability ( cf., Matter of Lydia K., 112 A.D.2d 306, 491 N.Y.S.2d 752, affd 67 N.Y.2d 681, 499 N.Y.S.2d 684, 490 N.E.2d 551 Notwithstanding these provisions, and even though the Family Court Act state......
-
People v. Grant
...[were] still in abeyance" (People v. Edwards, supra, at p. 498, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229; see also, Matter of Lydia K., App.Div., 491 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2d Dept., 1985], lv. granted --- N.Y.2d ----, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, --- N.E.2d ---- [Nov. 14, 1985] [paramedic allowed to testify that fou......
-
Aaron H. v. James G.
...given that the statute expressly excludes hearsay that is not admissible under a recognized hearsay exception ( see e .g., Matter of Lydia K., 112 A.D.2d 306, 307,aff'd67 N.Y.2d 681 [child's out-of-court statement is spontaneous statement and admissible] ).C There are valid reasons for excl......
-
Reska v. Browne
...[4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 910, 39 N.Y.S.3d 378, 62 N.E.3d 118 [2016] ; see generally CPLR 4017 ; Matter of Lydia K., 112 A.D.2d 306, 307, 491 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2d Dept. 1985], affd 67 N.Y.2d 681, 499 N.Y.S.2d 684, 490 N.E.2d 551 [1986] ), and we decline to address it in the interest......