Duquette v. Ducatte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duquette v. Ducatte

102 A.D.2d 904, 477 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19143

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

DecidedJune 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 904 (Duquette v. Ducatte) 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

Duquette v. Ducatte, 102 A.D.2d 904, 477 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Feinberg, J.), entered January 6, 1983, which, inter alia, determined that respondent willfully failed to obey an order of protection and committed respondent to a 30-day period of imprisonment. H Respondent contends that the evidence presented was not sufficient to sustain a finding of her willful violation of the order of protection. However, a review of the record simply fails to support this contention. H Next, respondent asserts that the ordered 30-day period of imprisonment was excessive. Again, however, a review of the record fails to substantiate respondent’s contention. Under the circumstances of this case, Family Court’s disposition was eminently fair and reasonable. The order must, therefore, be affirmed. H Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Feinberg, J.), entered January 6, 1983, which, inter alia, determined that respondent willfully failed to obey an order of protection and committed respondent to a 30-day period of imprisonment. H Respondent contends that the evidence presented was not sufficient to sustain a finding of her willful violation of the order of protection. However, a review of the record simply fails to support this contention. H Next, respondent asserts that the ordered 30-day period of imprisonment was excessive. Again, however, a review of the record fails to substantiate respondent’s contention. Under the circumstances of this case, Family Court’s disposition was eminently fair and reasonable. The order must, therefore, be affirmed. H Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 904, 477 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duquette-v-ducatte-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack