Bongiorno v. Bongiorno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bongiorno v. Bongiorno

1 A.D.2d 511, 767 N.Y.S.2d 276

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 511 (Bongiorno v. Bongiorno) 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

Bongiorno v. Bongiorno, 1 A.D.2d 511, 767 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Antonina Bongiorno appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Heffernan, J), dated December 16, 2002, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition for an order of protection against Andrea Bongiorno.

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

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition upon its finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). The determination whether the respondent committed [512]*512such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Pearsall v Martin-Zenick, 267 AD2d 240 [1999]), and we find no basis to reverse its determination.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Cozier and Rivera, 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, Antonina Bongiorno appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Heffernan, J), dated December 16, 2002, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition for an order of protection against Andrea Bongiorno.

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

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition upon its finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). The determination whether the respondent committed [512]*512such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Pearsall v Martin-Zenick, 267 AD2d 240 [1999]), and we find no basis to reverse its determination.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 511, 767 N.Y.S.2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bongiorno-v-bongiorno-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack