Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P.

34 A.D.3d 307, 824 N.Y.S.2d 628
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 307 (Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P.) 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
Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P., 34 A.D.3d 307, 824 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted an order of protection for five years to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the testimony of both parties at the fact-finding hearing, we find no basis to disturb the court’s findings on credibility. Nor do we find a basis to disturb its conclusions that respondent’s treatment of petitioner, his mother, who is particularly vulnerable because of her mental illness, and his extended pattern of menacing, harassment, attempted assault and disorderly conduct toward her, constitute aggravating circumstances (Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]; § 842; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 21 AD3d 1319 [2005], lv dismissed 6 [308]*308NY3d 772 [2006]; Matter of Wright v Wright, 4 AD3d 683 [2004]).

The order of protection is valid notwithstanding that a dispositional hearing was not conducted. Respondent never demanded a dispositional hearing, and provides no indication of what evidence he would have offered. There is no explicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under Family Court Act article 8. Since the only dispositional order in issue was an order of protection, and since the evidence at the fact-finding hearing amply supported the issuance of that order and the duration of its term, no purpose would have been served by conducting a dispositional hearing (Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W., 278 AD2d 177 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of E.R. v. D.R.
2026 NY Slip Op 50095(U) (NYC Family Court, 2026)
Matter of Any G. v. Ayman H.
2022 NY Slip Op 05270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S.
101 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kristina K. v. Timothy K.
91 A.D.3d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Tonya B. v. Matthew B.
90 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Banks v. Penney-Richards
68 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wan-Su Li v. Cloud Feng
45 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Saira A. v. Olga M.
40 A.D.3d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 307, 824 N.Y.S.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazel-pr-v-paul-jp-nyappdiv-2006.