Belgrave v. Mingo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belgrave v. Mingo

28 A.D.3d 479, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579

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

DecidedApril 4, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 479 (Belgrave v. Mingo) 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

Belgrave v. Mingo, 28 A.D.3d 479, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated February 22, 2005, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition alleging that the respondent violated the conditions of an order of protection of the same court dated December 4, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Family Court that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated the conditions of the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 846-a). As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight, and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Lunn, 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, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated February 22, 2005, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition alleging that the respondent violated the conditions of an order of protection of the same court dated December 4, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Family Court that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated the conditions of the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 846-a). As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight, and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 479, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belgrave-v-mingo-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack