Case Name: In the Matter of Alan Pederson, a Child Alleged to be Abused. Claudia Cummings et al., Respondents
Court: New York City Family Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-03-13
Citations: 187 Misc. 2d 486
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Alan Pederson, a Child Alleged to be Abused. Claudia Cummings et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
[723 NYS2d 344]
In the Matter of Alan Pederson, a Child Alleged to be Abused. Claudia Cummings et al., Respondents.
Family Court, Kings County,
March 13, 2001
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Delano Connolly of counsel), for petitioner. Legal Aid Society (.Monica Drinane and Christine Gottlieb of counsel), Law Guardian. Rick Stein for respondent mother. Sal Redding, respondent father pro se.
Names used herein are fictitious for purposes of publication.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Philip C. Segal, J.
In this child protective proceeding (Family Ct Act art 10), petitioner, New York City Administration for Children's Ser vices, moves for an order compelling respondents to submit to pretrial dental examinations in which dental molds or impressions of respondents' teeth would be made (see People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42 [1981]). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
The verified petition alleges, among other things, that: (i) respondents' three-year-old son was found during a medical examination to have adult human bite marks on his right shoulder; (ii) the child had been in respondents' care and custody; (iii) respondents offered no explanation for the bite marks; and (iv) respondents should each be held responsible for the condition of the child under the statutory res ipsa loquitur presumption (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]; see generally Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238 [1993]). As such, respondents' dental impressions are "in controversy" (CPLR 3121 [a]) and may be compelled as a matter of pretrial discovery (Matter of M. Children, 171 Misc 2d 838 [Fam Ct, Kings County 1997]).
Further, petitioner has established "probable cause that the [dental] evidence is reasonably related to establishing the allegations" set forth in the petition and that obtaining the evidence does not present an "unreasonable intrusion or risk of serious physical injury" to respondents (Family Ct Act § 1038-a; People v Middleton, supra).