Cleary v. Morgan

306 A.D.2d 475, 761 N.Y.S.2d 508
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 475 (Cleary v. Morgan) 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
Cleary v. Morgan, 306 A.D.2d 475, 761 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated June 6, 2000, which, after a hearing, finding that he committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, granted the petitioner an order of protection from June 6, 2000, until June 6, 2003, (2) an order of the same court, also dated June 6, 2000, which committed him to the Rockland County Jail for a term of five months commencing May 31, 2000, and (3) an order of the same court dated June 13, 2000, which placed him on probation for a period of one year upon the termination of his commitment to the Rockland County Jail.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the order of protection, order of commitment, and order which placed the appellant on probation have all expired, under the circumstances of this case, “in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense,” the appeals are not academic (Matter of O’Herron v O’Herron, 300 AD2d 491, 492 [2002]; see also Matter of Kennedy v Tsombanis, 277 AD2d 315 [2000]; cf. Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862 [1995]).

The Family Court’s determination that the father committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 was supported by the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Savine v Savine-Rivas, 274 AD2d 585, 586 [2000]).

The father’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cutter v. Feldman
23 A.D.3d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 475, 761 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleary-v-morgan-nyappdiv-2003.