Chase-Triou v. Triou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase-Triou v. Triou

96 A.D.3d 1699, 946 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedJune 29, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1699 (Chase-Triou v. Triou) 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

Chase-Triou v. Triou, 96 A.D.3d 1699, 946 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Daniel G. Barrett, J.), entered March 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order granted petitioner an order of protection through March 19, 2011.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of protection entered in favor of petitioner and her two daughters. We conclude that Family Court properly determined that petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see generally Matter of Harrington v Harrington, 63 AD3d 1618, 1619 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]), thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Daniel G. Barrett, J.), entered March 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order granted petitioner an order of protection through March 19, 2011.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of protection entered in favor of petitioner and her two daughters. We conclude that Family Court properly determined that petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see generally Matter of Harrington v Harrington, 63 AD3d 1618, 1619 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]), thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 1699, 946 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-triou-v-triou-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack