Flascher v. Flascher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flascher v. Flascher

298 A.D.2d 393, 751 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 393 (Flascher v. Flascher) 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

Flascher v. Flascher, 298 A.D.2d 393, 751 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated January 19, 2001, which, after a hearing, granted a two-year order of protection and directed, inter alia, that he refrain from contact with the wife at her home or place of employment.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof a finding that aggravating circumstances exist including violent and harassing behavior by the husband towards the wife which constitutes an immediate and ongoing danger to her; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court’s finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances (see Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 254 AD2d 361; Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]). The order of protection is thus modified to include this finding in compliance with Family Court Act § 842 (see Matter of Reilly v Reilly, supra; Matter of Muller v Muller, 221 AD2d 635).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated January 19, 2001, which, after a hearing, granted a two-year order of protection and directed, inter alia, that he refrain from contact with the wife at her home or place of employment.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof a finding that aggravating circumstances exist including violent and harassing behavior by the husband towards the wife which constitutes an immediate and ongoing danger to her; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband’s contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court’s finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances (see Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 254 AD2d 361; Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]). The order of protection is thus modified to include this finding in compliance with Family Court Act § 842 (see Matter of Reilly v Reilly, supra; Matter of Muller v Muller, 221 AD2d 635).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 393, 751 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flascher-v-flascher-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack