What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed Family Court findings that the mother neglected her eldest child and, because the other children witnessed the incident, derivatively neglected them as well.

Why was the child’s out-of-court statement allowed?

The statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs of the child’s scratches taken the day after the incident, which satisfied the court’s corroboration requirement.

Who is affected by this decision?

The respondent mother and her three children are directly affected; the Administration for Children's Services’ findings and any resulting orders remain in place.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court; further appeal to New York’s Court of Appeals would require permission and is procedurally limited, so consulting counsel promptly is advisable if further review is sought.

Matter of K.V. v. M.K.V.

Docket Docket No. N-15659/24, N-15600/24, N-15601/24|Appeal No. 6490-6491|Case No. 2025-02067, 2025-02068|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyAffirmed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02726
Docket numbers: Docket NoN-15659/24, N-15600/24, N-15601/24Appeal No6490-6491Case No2025-02067, 2025-02068

Appeal from Family Court orders of disposition reviewing a fact-finding order that found the mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected two other children.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Family Court orders that found respondent mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected two other children. The court concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother choked the eldest child, pulled and ripped the child's shirt, and caused scratches; the child’s out-of-court statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs. The court also found the mother committed acts of domestic violence during the same incident and that the other children were present, supporting derivative neglect because the mother’s conduct created a substantial risk of harm.

Issues Decided

Whether the Family Court properly found the mother neglected her eldest child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment.
Whether the child’s out-of-court statement was admissible and sufficiently corroborated.
Whether acts of domestic violence during the incident supported a finding of neglect.
Whether the evidence of neglect as to the eldest child supported derivative neglect findings as to the other children.

Court's Reasoning

The court held that a preponderance of the evidence showed the mother inflicted excessive corporal punishment (choking, pulling/ripping clothing, causing scratches). The child’s out-of-court statement was admissible because a caseworker observed and photographed the scratches the next day, providing corroboration. The mother’s acts of domestic violence in the same incident created imminent danger to the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing. Because the other children were present and witnessed parts of the incident, the mother’s impaired judgment posed a substantial risk of harm, supporting derivative neglect findings.

Authorities Cited

Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)
Family Court Act § 1046(b)(i)
Matter of Ameena C. v Wykisha C.83 AD3d 606 (1st Dept 2011)
Matter of Empress B. v Henrietta L.204 AD3d 562 (1st Dept 2022)

Parties

Petitioner: Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York
Respondent-Appellant: M.K.
Attorney: Steven N. Feinman
Attorney: Steven Banks / Eva L. Jerome
Attorney: Donna C. Chin
Attorney: Marion C. Perry
Judge: Pamela B. Scheininger
Judge: E. Grace Park

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-30
Fact-finding order date: 2025-02-18
Orders of disposition entered: 2025-03-12

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult family-law counsel
The mother should consult an attorney to discuss options, including whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or to request any relief from placement or services orders.
2
Comply with Family Court orders
Follow any dispositional requirements or service plans from Family Court, such as parenting programs or supervised visitation, to address the court’s safety concerns.
3
Document rehabilitation efforts
If seeking modification of orders later, gather records of counseling, parenting classes, or other services showing remediation of the court’s concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed Family Court findings that the mother neglected her eldest child and, because the other children witnessed the incident, derivatively neglected them as well.
Why was the child’s out-of-court statement allowed?: The statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs of the child’s scratches taken the day after the incident, which satisfied the court’s corroboration requirement.
Who is affected by this decision?: The respondent mother and her three children are directly affected; the Administration for Children's Services’ findings and any resulting orders remain in place.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court; further appeal to New York’s Court of Appeals would require permission and is procedurally limited, so consulting counsel promptly is advisable if further review is sought.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of K.V. v M.K.V. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02726

Matter of K.V. v M.K.V.

2026 NY Slip Op 02726

April 30, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

In the Matter of K.V., and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

M.K.., Respondent-Appellant.

In the Matter of M.R., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent,

M.K.., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026

Docket No. N-15659/24, N-15600/24, N-15601/24|Appeal No. 6490-6491|Case No. 2025-02067, 2025-02068|

Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for respondent.

Donna C. Chin, New York, attorney for the child, M.R.

Marion C. Perry, New York, attorney for the children, K.V and K.M.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Pamela B. Scheininger, J.), entered on or about March 12, 2025, to the extent they bring up for review a fact-finding order, same court (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2025, which found that respondent mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected her two other children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the mother, in choking her eldest child and pulling and ripping the child's shirt, neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on the child (
see
Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B]; 1046[b][i]). The child's out-of-court statement that the mother caused the scratches to the neck and stomach during the incident were properly admitted because that statement was corroborated by a caseworker's observation of the scratches on the child and the photographs of the injuries, which the caseworker took the day after they were inflicted (
see Matter of Ameena C. [Wykisha C.]
, 83 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2011]).

Family Court, in its discretion and in light of the credible evidence, properly rejected the mother's denial of excessive corporal punishment, and we find no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations on appeal (
see Matter of Ivahly M. [Jennifer L.]
, 159 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2018]). That the eldest child's injuries were the result of a single incident does not preclude a finding of excessive corporal punishment (
see Matter of EJ W. [Leroy E.W.]
, 212 AD3d 568, 568 [1st Dept 2023]).

The finding of neglect is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence establishing that the mother committed acts of domestic violence against the eldest child's father during the same incident (
see

Matter of Allyerra E. [Alando E.]
, 132 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2015],
lv denied
26 NY3d 913 [2015]). The evidence shows that the mother's acts posed imminent danger to the child's emotional and mental wellbeing. The mother's own fact-finding testimony establishes that the child was in the room and crying during the incident (
see Matter of J.A.W. [Lance W.]
, 216 AD3d 480, 481 [1st Dept 2023]).

The evidence of the mother's use of excessive corporal punishment against the eldest child supports the finding of derivative neglect as to the two other children because the mother's behavior demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in her care (
see
Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i];
Matter of Empress B. [Henrietta L.]
, 204 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2022]). The fact-finding testimony establishes that the other children were home during the incident and witnessed part of it (
see id.
;
Matter of Tyson T. [Latoyer T.]
, 146 AD3d 669, 670 [1st Dept 2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 30, 2026