In re Whitney B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Whitney B.

57 A.D.3d 771, 870 N.Y.2d 391

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 771 (In re Whitney B.) 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

In re Whitney B., 57 A.D.3d 771, 870 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the father willfully and without just cause violated the temporary order of protection. The evidence at the hearing established that, after having been apprised by the Family Court [772]*772that the temporary order of protection, among other things, required that he have no unsupervised contact with the children, the father approached one child after school, put her into a car against her will, and drove around with her for several hours. Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father violated the temporary order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 1072; Matter of Jazmone S., 48 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Christine G., 36 AD3d 615 [2007]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Mario Q.], 228 AD2d 677, 678 [1996]). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

The petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the father willfully and without just cause violated the temporary order of protection. The evidence at the hearing established that, after having been apprised by the Family Court [772]*772that the temporary order of protection, among other things, required that he have no unsupervised contact with the children, the father approached one child after school, put her into a car against her will, and drove around with her for several hours. Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father violated the temporary order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 1072; Matter of Jazmone S., 48 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Christine G., 36 AD3d 615 [2007]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Mario Q.], 228 AD2d 677, 678 [1996]). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 771, 870 N.Y.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-whitney-b-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack