Boyd v. Boyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyd v. Boyd

193 A.D.2d 1039, 598 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346

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

DecidedMay 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1039 (Boyd v. Boyd) 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

Boyd v. Boyd, 193 A.D.2d 1039, 598 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the [1040]*1040Family Court of Saratoga County (James, J.), entered January 8, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, for a temporary order of protection.

Upon our review of the record, petitioner demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832) that respondent committed the family offense of harassment within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (see, Matter of Dutz v Colon, 183 AD2d 715). Family Court credited petitioner’s testimony in support of her application (see, Matter of Joseph P. B. v Margaret O’D., 161 AD2d 545) and the record supports its conclusion that respondent’s actions alarmed or annoyed petitioner and had no legitimate purpose (see, Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766; see also, Penal Law former § 240.25 [5]). In addition, the circumstances surrounding respondent’s actions showed that the requisite element of intent existed (see, Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, 176 AD2d 409). As a final matter, the fact that Penal Law former § 240.25 (2) has been found unconstitutional (see, People v Deitze, 75 NY2d 47) does not mandate a different conclusion because Family Court did not base its finding on that section (see, Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, supra). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the [1040]*1040Family Court of Saratoga County (James, J.), entered January 8, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, for a temporary order of protection.

Upon our review of the record, petitioner demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832) that respondent committed the family offense of harassment within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (see, Matter of Dutz v Colon, 183 AD2d 715). Family Court credited petitioner’s testimony in support of her application (see, Matter of Joseph P. B. v Margaret O’D., 161 AD2d 545) and the record supports its conclusion that respondent’s actions alarmed or annoyed petitioner and had no legitimate purpose (see, Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766; see also, Penal Law former § 240.25 [5]). In addition, the circumstances surrounding respondent’s actions showed that the requisite element of intent existed (see, Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, 176 AD2d 409). As a final matter, the fact that Penal Law former § 240.25 (2) has been found unconstitutional (see, People v Deitze, 75 NY2d 47) does not mandate a different conclusion because Family Court did not base its finding on that section (see, Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, supra). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1039, 598 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-boyd-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack