Baksh v. Baksh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baksh v. Baksh

49 A.D.3d 728, 852 N.Y.2d 851

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2008·Published

Opinion

The allegations set forth in the petition failed to state a cause of action constituting a family offense pursuant to Family Court Act § 812 (1) (see Matter of Eck v Eck, 44 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2007]; Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 32 AD3d 521 [2006]; Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]; Swersky v Swersky, 299 AD2d 540 [2002]).

[729] The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Anthony R., 43 AD3d 939 [2007]; Matter of Rahmel S., 4 AD3d 365, 366 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin', JJ., concur.

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

The allegations set forth in the petition failed to state a cause of action constituting a family offense pursuant to Family Court Act § 812 (1) (see Matter of Eck v Eck, 44 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2007]; Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 32 AD3d 521 [2006]; Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]; Swersky v Swersky, 299 AD2d 540 [2002]).

[729] The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Anthony R., 43 AD3d 939 [2007]; Matter of Rahmel S., 4 AD3d 365, 366 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin', JJ., concur.

Baksh v. Baksh, 49 A.D.3d 728, 852 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 728 (Baksh v. Baksh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related