Devlin v. Putorti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devlin v. Putorti

183 A.D.2d 804, 586 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6896

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

DecidedMay 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 804 (Devlin v. Putorti) 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

Devlin v. Putorti, 183 A.D.2d 804, 586 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated December 11, 1989, as, after a hearing, granted the respondent access to the basement of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

After a hearing, the Family Court found, among other things, that the respondent posed no threat to the safety of the petitioner. This finding is supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of this finding of fact, and in light of all the circumstances of this case, we see no merit to the petitioner’s argument that the respondent should be permanently barred from every part of the marital residence (see generally, Chieco v Chieco, 170 AD2d 569; cf., Merola v Merola, 146 AD2d 611).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated December 11, 1989, as, after a hearing, granted the respondent access to the basement of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

After a hearing, the Family Court found, among other things, that the respondent posed no threat to the safety of the petitioner. This finding is supported by the weight of the evidence. In light of this finding of fact, and in light of all the circumstances of this case, we see no merit to the petitioner’s argument that the respondent should be permanently barred from every part of the marital residence (see generally, Chieco v Chieco, 170 AD2d 569; cf., Merola v Merola, 146 AD2d 611).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 804, 586 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devlin-v-putorti-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack