Finocchiaro v. Finocchiaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finocchiaro v. Finocchiaro

192 A.D.2d 1089, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1089 (Finocchiaro v. Finocchiaro) 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

Finocchiaro v. Finocchiaro, 192 A.D.2d 1089, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense enumerated in Family Court Act § 812. The circumstances surrounding respondent’s actions toward petitioner fail to demonstrate either the requisite element of intent to harass (see, Penal Law former § 240.25; People v Moyer, 27 NY2d 252, 253; cf., Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, 176 AD2d 409) or that respondent intentionally committed an act which placed petitioner in fear of imminent serious injury (see, Penal Law former § 120.15; People v Vazquez, 136 Misc 2d 1057, 1059). Finally, to the extent that Family Court found that respondent committed a family offense enumerated in section 812 of the Family Court Act against his stepson, the petition did not allege that he committed such offense. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J. — Family Offense.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense enumerated in Family Court Act § 812. The circumstances surrounding respondent’s actions toward petitioner fail to demonstrate either the requisite element of intent to harass (see, Penal Law former § 240.25; People v Moyer, 27 NY2d 252, 253; cf., Matter of Holcomb v Holcomb, 176 AD2d 409) or that respondent intentionally committed an act which placed petitioner in fear of imminent serious injury (see, Penal Law former § 120.15; People v Vazquez, 136 Misc 2d 1057, 1059). Finally, to the extent that Family Court found that respondent committed a family offense enumerated in section 812 of the Family Court Act against his stepson, the petition did not allege that he committed such offense. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J. — Family Offense.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1089, 598 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finocchiaro-v-finocchiaro-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack