Bazante v. Bazante

107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 107 A.D.3d 707 (Bazante v. Bazante) 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
Bazante v. Bazante, 107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the former wife appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Aaron, J.), dated August 31, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that she committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from the former husband for a period up to and including August 30, 2013.

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

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753 [2013]; Matter of Jackson v Idlett, 103 AD3d 723 [2013]; Matter of Fleming v Fleming, 52 AD3d 600, 601 [2008]; Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822 [2008]). Here, contrary to the former wife’s contentions, the Family Court’s determination that she committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, which was based upon its as[708]*708sessment of the credibility of the parties, is supported by the record (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Winfield, v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753 [2013]), and warranted the issuance of the order of protection (see Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d at 822). Eng, P.J., Rivera, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Smith v. Ludewig
2017 NY Slip Op 3184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Garcia v. Marini
133 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Masciello v. Masciello
130 A.D.3d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Abatantuno v. Abatantuno
119 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Manco v. Manco
116 A.D.3d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Messana v. Messana
115 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Alonso v. Perdue
112 A.D.3d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Saldivar v. Cabrera
109 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Alam v. Alam
108 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bazante-v-bazante-nyappdiv-2013.