Gloria C. v. Josephine I.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gloria C. v. Josephine I.

106 A.D.3d 630, 968 N.Y.S.2d 802

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

DecidedMay 28, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 630 (Gloria C. v. Josephine I.) 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

Gloria C. v. Josephine I., 106 A.D.3d 630, 968 N.Y.S.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about July 20, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent acted with an intent to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner, and repeatedly committed acts that served no legitimate purpose (see generally Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Melind M. v Joseph P., 95 AD3d 553, 555 [1st Dept 2012]). Accordingly, the Family Court correctly determined that respondent did not commit acts that constituted harassment in the second degree (see William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, 2013 Electronic Update, Penal Law § 240.26). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Petitioner’s appellate brief does not challenge the Family Court’s conclusion that the petition’s other allegations were without merit; accordingly, those allegations are deemed [631]*631abandoned (see Matter of Wechsler v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 85 AD3d 1378, 1379 n 2 [3d Dept 2011]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about July 20, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent acted with an intent to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner, and repeatedly committed acts that served no legitimate purpose (see generally Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Melind M. v Joseph P., 95 AD3d 553, 555 [1st Dept 2012]). Accordingly, the Family Court correctly determined that respondent did not commit acts that constituted harassment in the second degree (see William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, 2013 Electronic Update, Penal Law § 240.26). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Petitioner’s appellate brief does not challenge the Family Court’s conclusion that the petition’s other allegations were without merit; accordingly, those allegations are deemed [631]*631abandoned (see Matter of Wechsler v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 85 AD3d 1378, 1379 n 2 [3d Dept 2011]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 630, 968 N.Y.S.2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-c-v-josephine-i-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack