Freedman v. Jovanovic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freedman v. Jovanovic

165 A.D.2d 694, 564 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 694 (Freedman v. Jovanovic) 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

Freedman v. Jovanovic, 165 A.D.2d 694, 564 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about April 17, 1990, which, inter alia, committed petitioner to the New York City Department of Correction for five consecutive weekends for violating an order of protection, unanimously affirmed with costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

An order of protection was issued by the Family Court on September 16, 1988, and thereafter updated, which required petitioner to stay away from respondent, his ex-wife, and the parties’ minor children, and directed that he neither tele[695]*695phone nor write to respondent or the children. On respondent’s motion for an order finding petitioner to have willfully and deliberately violated the order of protection, a hearing was held at which respondent testified that petitioner had, inter alia, telephoned her and the children numerous times and otherwise harassed the family. Petitioner denied these allegations. The court found that petitioner had willfully and deliberately violated the order with respect to phone contact, finding respondent’s testimony to be credible. The Family Court order committing petitioner was stayed by this court pending appeal.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the legend on the order of protection, written in capital letters, gave him sufficient notice that he could be charged with contempt if he violated the order. Further notice was given of the contempt charge in respondent’s applications, and neither petitioner nor counsel raised any objection to the lack of notice. The court further found petitioner guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of respondent. Nor was the short form order insufficient or in violation of Judiciary Law § 770, as the order of protection was enforceable under part 5 of article 4 of the Family Court Act, which sets forth procedures and remedies regarding contempt proceedings (see, Family Ct Act §§ 453, 454).

Nor was it error to allow the guardian ad litem to participate in the proceeding (Rapp v Rapp, 101 Misc 2d 375).

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about April 17, 1990, which, inter alia, committed petitioner to the New York City Department of Correction for five consecutive weekends for violating an order of protection, unanimously affirmed with costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

An order of protection was issued by the Family Court on September 16, 1988, and thereafter updated, which required petitioner to stay away from respondent, his ex-wife, and the parties’ minor children, and directed that he neither tele[695]*695phone nor write to respondent or the children. On respondent’s motion for an order finding petitioner to have willfully and deliberately violated the order of protection, a hearing was held at which respondent testified that petitioner had, inter alia, telephoned her and the children numerous times and otherwise harassed the family. Petitioner denied these allegations. The court found that petitioner had willfully and deliberately violated the order with respect to phone contact, finding respondent’s testimony to be credible. The Family Court order committing petitioner was stayed by this court pending appeal.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the legend on the order of protection, written in capital letters, gave him sufficient notice that he could be charged with contempt if he violated the order. Further notice was given of the contempt charge in respondent’s applications, and neither petitioner nor counsel raised any objection to the lack of notice. The court further found petitioner guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of respondent. Nor was the short form order insufficient or in violation of Judiciary Law § 770, as the order of protection was enforceable under part 5 of article 4 of the Family Court Act, which sets forth procedures and remedies regarding contempt proceedings (see, Family Ct Act §§ 453, 454).

Nor was it error to allow the guardian ad litem to participate in the proceeding (Rapp v Rapp, 101 Misc 2d 375).

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 694, 564 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedman-v-jovanovic-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack