Barilo v. Milman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barilo v. Milman

56 A.D.2d 769, 867 N.Y.S.2d 682

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2008·Published

Opinion

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Semen Milman appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 21, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner an order of protection against him for a period of two years.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court” (Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]; see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d 803 [2006]; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]), and the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference on appeal (see Matter of Wissink v Wissink, 13 AD3d 461, 462 [2004]). We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Mastro, J.P, Skelos, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Semen Milman appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 21, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner an order of protection against him for a period of two years.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court” (Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]; see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d 803 [2006]; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]), and the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference on appeal (see Matter of Wissink v Wissink, 13 AD3d 461, 462 [2004]). We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Mastro, J.P, Skelos, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Barilo v. Milman, 56 A.D.2d 769, 867 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

56 A.D.2d 769 (Barilo v. Milman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related