Dutz v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dutz v. Colon

183 A.D.2d 715, 586 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553

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

DecidedMay 4, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 715 (Dutz v. Colon) 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

Dutz v. Colon, 183 A.D.2d 715, 586 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 for an order of protection, Samuel Colon appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered May 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted the requested relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record amply supports the Family Court’s conclusion that the respondent, "with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm” [716]*716(Penal Law § 240.25 [5]) the petitioner, engaged in a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed her, and which served no legitimate purpose (Family Ct Act § 812; see, Penal Law § 240.25 [5]). Therefore, the Family Court properly found that the respondent had committed acts which would have constituted the offense of harassment, which warranted the issuance of an order of protection against him (see, Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766, 767). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 for an order of protection, Samuel Colon appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered May 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted the requested relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record amply supports the Family Court’s conclusion that the respondent, "with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm” [716]*716(Penal Law § 240.25 [5]) the petitioner, engaged in a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed her, and which served no legitimate purpose (Family Ct Act § 812; see, Penal Law § 240.25 [5]). Therefore, the Family Court properly found that the respondent had committed acts which would have constituted the offense of harassment, which warranted the issuance of an order of protection against him (see, Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766, 767). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 715, 586 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutz-v-colon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack