From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
In the Matter of Peter G. and Others
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
6 A.D.3d 201, 774 N.Y.S.2d 686 (2004)
Facts
A school psychologist became concerned that Peter G., a minor, was living in an unsafe household. Peter told the psychologist that he and his younger sister, Venitia G., had been beaten by their father, Steven G., with either a cane or a belt. The psychologist informed the state central registry, which reported the matter to a caseworker for the administration of children’s services. The caseworker visited the G. home to investigate. Peter reiterated that Steven had beaten him, though the caseworker saw no bruises where Peter said he had been struck with a cane or belt. Peter’s responses to questions did not make it clear how often or how hard Peter was struck by Steven. Meanwhile, Venitia denied being struck, though she said that she had witnessed Steven beating Peter. A petition was filed against Steven and his wife, Angela G., alleging that Steven used excessive corporal punishment against his children and that Angela was neglectful in preventing the excessive punishment from occurring. The family court entered orders of disposition to the effect that Steven and Angela neglected their children. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court heard the matter on appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
Dissent (Ellerin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
