Drita F. v. Joseph I.R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drita F. v. Joseph I.R.

88 A.D.3d 619, 931 N.Y.2d 506

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 619 (Drita F. v. Joseph I.R.) 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

Drita F. v. Joseph I.R., 88 A.D.3d 619, 931 N.Y.2d 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination that respondent committed the offense of harassment in the second degree and violated an order of protection, was supported by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence (see Penal Law § 240.26 [2]; Family Ct Act § 832). A witness testified that respondent followed him and petitioner for several blocks, that respondent and petitioner argued, and that the witness and petitioner walked in a different direction in an effort to avoid respondent. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Referee (see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and [620]*620find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The determination that respondent committed the offense of harassment in the second degree and violated an order of protection, was supported by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence (see Penal Law § 240.26 [2]; Family Ct Act § 832). A witness testified that respondent followed him and petitioner for several blocks, that respondent and petitioner argued, and that the witness and petitioner walked in a different direction in an effort to avoid respondent. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Referee (see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and [620]*620find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 619, 931 N.Y.2d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drita-f-v-joseph-ir-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack