Dalrymple v. Dalrymple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dalrymple v. Dalrymple

83 A.D.3d 539, 920 N.Y.S.2d 662

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

DecidedApril 19, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 539 (Dalrymple v. Dalrymple) 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

Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 83 A.D.3d 539, 920 N.Y.S.2d 662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts warranting an order of protection in his favor (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [2009]). Petitioner’s claim that respondent attempted to poison him was unsubstantiated, and his assertion that he was fearful that respondent would harm him was not objectively reasonable (see Matter of Tyrone T. v Katherine M., 78 AD3d 545 [2010]). Furthermore, the police report did not indicate that respondent had a knife or weapons of any kind in her possession when the police responded to the parties’ home. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts warranting an order of protection in his favor (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [2009]). Petitioner’s claim that respondent attempted to poison him was unsubstantiated, and his assertion that he was fearful that respondent would harm him was not objectively reasonable (see Matter of Tyrone T. v Katherine M., 78 AD3d 545 [2010]). Furthermore, the police report did not indicate that respondent had a knife or weapons of any kind in her possession when the police responded to the parties’ home. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 539, 920 N.Y.S.2d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalrymple-v-dalrymple-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack