Hines v. Hines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hines v. Hines

61 A.D.3d 760, 876 N.Y.S.2d 652

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 760 (Hines v. Hines) 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

Hines v. Hines, 61 A.D.3d 760, 876 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated May 29, 2008, as, after a hearing, and upon a finding that her sister Denise Hines committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, inter alia, directed Denise Hines to stay away from the petitioner for a period of only two years.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There was insufficient evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing to support a finding of aggravating circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]; Matter of Charles v Charles, 21 AD3d 487 [2005]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly fixed the term of the order of protection at a period of only two years (see Family Ct Act § 842). Spolzino, J.E, Skelos, Santucci and Dickerson, 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 appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated May 29, 2008, as, after a hearing, and upon a finding that her sister Denise Hines committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, inter alia, directed Denise Hines to stay away from the petitioner for a period of only two years.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There was insufficient evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing to support a finding of aggravating circumstances (see Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]; Matter of Charles v Charles, 21 AD3d 487 [2005]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly fixed the term of the order of protection at a period of only two years (see Family Ct Act § 842). Spolzino, J.E, Skelos, Santucci and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 760, 876 N.Y.S.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-hines-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack