Hyder B. J. v. Widad Al-S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hyder B. J. v. Widad Al-S.

256 A.D.2d 25, 680 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12906

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 25 (Hyder B. J. v. Widad Al-S.) 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

Hyder B. J. v. Widad Al-S., 256 A.D.2d 25, 680 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about April 21, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother an order of protection for one year and determined that respondent father violated a temporary order of protection and committed him to the New York City Department of Correction for a term of 45 days, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 30, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner father’s application for an order of protection against respondent mother for one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent father may not raise for the first time on appeal his contention that the petitioner failed to establish that he wilfully violated the temporary order of protection on the basis that he had no notice of such order (see, Szigyarto v Szigyarto, 64 NY2d 275). In any event, we note that at the hearing, rather than asserting that he had no knowledge of the order, respondent father maintained that he did not violate it.

The court’s credibility findings, concluding that each party committed the charged offenses, are entitled to deference and are well supported by the hearing records (Matter of Muldavin v Muldavin, 248 AD2d 209). Threats to harm and kill each other justified entry of the orders of protection (supra). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Orders, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about April 21, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother an order of protection for one year and determined that respondent father violated a temporary order of protection and committed him to the New York City Department of Correction for a term of 45 days, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 30, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner father’s application for an order of protection against respondent mother for one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent father may not raise for the first time on appeal his contention that the petitioner failed to establish that he wilfully violated the temporary order of protection on the basis that he had no notice of such order (see, Szigyarto v Szigyarto, 64 NY2d 275). In any event, we note that at the hearing, rather than asserting that he had no knowledge of the order, respondent father maintained that he did not violate it.

The court’s credibility findings, concluding that each party committed the charged offenses, are entitled to deference and are well supported by the hearing records (Matter of Muldavin v Muldavin, 248 AD2d 209). Threats to harm and kill each other justified entry of the orders of protection (supra). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 25, 680 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyder-b-j-v-widad-al-s-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack