Fatima V. v. Ramon V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fatima V. v. Ramon V.

100 A.D.3d 509, 953 N.Y.S.2d 854

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 509 (Fatima V. v. Ramon V.) 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

Fatima V. v. Ramon V., 100 A.D.3d 509, 953 N.Y.S.2d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, New York [510]*510County (Fiordaliza A. Rodriguez, Ref.), entered on or about September 20, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent’s actions did not rise to the level of the family offenses of harassment in the second degree, menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832). Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence in support of her petition, and there exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the court (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, New York [510]*510County (Fiordaliza A. Rodriguez, Ref.), entered on or about September 20, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent’s actions did not rise to the level of the family offenses of harassment in the second degree, menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832). Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence in support of her petition, and there exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the court (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 509, 953 N.Y.S.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fatima-v-v-ramon-v-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack