Analuisa P. v. Warnell H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Analuisa P. v. Warnell H.

88 A.D.3d 624, 931 N.Y.2d 505

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 2011·Published

Opinion

Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Diallo v Diallo, 68 AD3d 411 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 854 [2010]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832), including the testimony of petitioner and a school district guard, supports the court’s finding that, on the day at issue, respondent committed acts that constituted the family offense of disorderly conduct (Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Eenal Law § 240.20). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1998]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Diallo v Diallo, 68 AD3d 411 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 854 [2010]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832), including the testimony of petitioner and a school district guard, supports the court’s finding that, on the day at issue, respondent committed acts that constituted the family offense of disorderly conduct (Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Eenal Law § 240.20). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1998]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Analuisa P. v. Warnell H., 88 A.D.3d 624, 931 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 624 (Analuisa P. v. Warnell H.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related