Baez v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baez v. Martinez

255 A.D.2d 131, 679 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 131 (Baez v. Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baez v. Martinez, 255 A.D.2d 131, 679 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about May 23, 1997, which, upon a finding that respondent had violated an order of protection, extended said order of protection for a period of 1 year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent husband’s contention, the record amply supports Family Court’s finding that respondent violated the subject order of protection by slapping petitioner in the [132]*132face. The credibility determinations of the Family Court in connection with this finding should be accorded deference and we see no basis to disturb them (see, Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about May 23, 1997, which, upon a finding that respondent had violated an order of protection, extended said order of protection for a period of 1 year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent husband’s contention, the record amply supports Family Court’s finding that respondent violated the subject order of protection by slapping petitioner in the [132]*132face. The credibility determinations of the Family Court in connection with this finding should be accorded deference and we see no basis to disturb them (see, Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 131, 679 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-martinez-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack