Gergis v. Nagib

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gergis v. Nagib

305 A.D.2d 504, 758 N.Y.S.2d 835

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 504 (Gergis v. Nagib) 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

Gergis v. Nagib, 305 A.D.2d 504, 758 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Ashraf Nagib appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated October 7, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to stay away from Neven Gergis until October 6, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832), that the appellant followed the petitioner in a public place with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm her (cf. Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390 [2002]). We find that these acts constituted the noncriminal offense of harassment in the second degree, a violation (see Penal Law § 240.26). Therefore, the Family Court properly granted a one-year order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 841 [d]; § 842; Matter of Marsha C. v Latoya D., 224 AD2d 522 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, 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, Ashraf Nagib appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated October 7, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to stay away from Neven Gergis until October 6, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832), that the appellant followed the petitioner in a public place with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm her (cf. Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390 [2002]). We find that these acts constituted the noncriminal offense of harassment in the second degree, a violation (see Penal Law § 240.26). Therefore, the Family Court properly granted a one-year order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 841 [d]; § 842; Matter of Marsha C. v Latoya D., 224 AD2d 522 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 504, 758 N.Y.S.2d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gergis-v-nagib-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack