Barnes v. Barnes

54 A.D.3d 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 9, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 755 (Barnes v. Barnes) 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
Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated June 4, 2007, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition alleging that the respondent violated the conditions of an order of protection of the same court dated June 7, 2006, and her separate petition to modify the conditions of that order of protection.

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

Where the Family Court is primarily presented with issues of credibility, its factual determinations are afforded great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Hijri v Fargaly, 49 AD3d 737 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40 AD3d 770 [2007]; Matter of Belgrave v Mingo, 28 AD3d 479 [2006]). Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the respondent violated the subject order of protection by making a threatening [756]*756telephone call to the petitioner. The court’s determination that the petitioner had failed to establish that this violation occurred was based solely upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Belgrave v Mingo, 28 AD3d 479 [2006]). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to offer sufficient proof to establish any other violation of the order of protection. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed both the petition alleging a violation of the order of protection, and the separate petition to modify the conditions of the order of protection by extending its term. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Chung v. Toppin
174 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Skarlith G. v. Guelvis J.C.
2020 NY Slip Op 3455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Argila v. Edelman
2019 NY Slip Op 5398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Zabizhin v. Zabizhin
129 A.D.3d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tulshi v. Tulshi
118 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Opray v. Fitzharris
84 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Richardson v. Richardson
80 A.D.3d 32 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Luke v. Luke
72 A.D.3d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Everett C. v. Oneida P.
61 A.D.3d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-barnes-nyappdiv-2008.