Harris W. v. James W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris W. v. James W.

253 A.D.2d 826, 677 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 826 (Harris W. v. James W.) 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

Harris W. v. James W., 253 A.D.2d 826, 677 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner, Priscilla Harris W., appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), dated October 11, 1996, which, after a hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

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

The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that the appellant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had committed acts which would have constituted the family offense of harassment (see, Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 petitioner, Priscilla Harris W., appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), dated October 11, 1996, which, after a hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

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

The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that the appellant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had committed acts which would have constituted the family offense of harassment (see, Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 826, 677 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-w-v-james-w-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack