Benitez v. Murati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benitez v. Murati

262 A.D.2d 79, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 79 (Benitez v. Murati) 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

Benitez v. Murati, 262 A.D.2d 79, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about May 5, 1995, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent had willfully violated an order of protection with attendant aggravating circumstances, ordered respondent committed for six months and issued petitioner and her three children a three-year order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s argument that the finding of a violation of the order of protection is unsupported by competent proof in the record is without merit. The credited testimony of petitioner, petitioner’s 14 year-old daughter and petitioner’s neighbor sufficiently established the allegations in the petition (see, Family Ct Act §§ 821, 832, 846-a; Matter of Tina T. v Steven U., 243 AD2d 863, 864, lv denied 91 NY2d 805). The record also supports the court’s finding of aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of a three-year order of protection (see, Family Ct Act §§ 827, 842). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about May 5, 1995, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent had willfully violated an order of protection with attendant aggravating circumstances, ordered respondent committed for six months and issued petitioner and her three children a three-year order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s argument that the finding of a violation of the order of protection is unsupported by competent proof in the record is without merit. The credited testimony of petitioner, petitioner’s 14 year-old daughter and petitioner’s neighbor sufficiently established the allegations in the petition (see, Family Ct Act §§ 821, 832, 846-a; Matter of Tina T. v Steven U., 243 AD2d 863, 864, lv denied 91 NY2d 805). The record also supports the court’s finding of aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of a three-year order of protection (see, Family Ct Act §§ 827, 842). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 79, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benitez-v-murati-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack