Dancer v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dancer v. Robertson

38 A.D.3d 887, 831 N.Y.S.2d 333

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 887 (Dancer v. Robertson) 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

Dancer v. Robertson, 38 A.D.3d 887, 831 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kent Robertson appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated February 1, 2006, which, after a hearing and upon finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree made after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until January 31, 2008.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529 [2004]; Matter of Bryan S., 286 AD2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746 [1996]). The record supports the Family Court’s determination that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed the act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d 375 [2004]; Mat[888]*888ter of Dienes v Dienes, 240 AD2d 576 [1997]; Matter of Pesce v Pesce, 223 AD2d 647 [1996]; Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, 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, Kent Robertson appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated February 1, 2006, which, after a hearing and upon finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree made after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until January 31, 2008.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529 [2004]; Matter of Bryan S., 286 AD2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746 [1996]). The record supports the Family Court’s determination that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed the act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d 375 [2004]; Mat[888]*888ter of Dienes v Dienes, 240 AD2d 576 [1997]; Matter of Pesce v Pesce, 223 AD2d 647 [1996]; Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 887, 831 N.Y.S.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dancer-v-robertson-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack