Kathy E.C. v. Fred T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kathy E.C. v. Fred T.

70 A.D.3d 511, 893 N.Y.S.2d 865

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 511 (Kathy E.C. v. Fred T.) 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

Kathy E.C. v. Fred T., 70 A.D.3d 511, 893 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of protection, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2008, which directed respondent, inter alia, to stay away from petitioner for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s contention that there was legally insufficient [512]*512evidence to establish an element of the second-degree harassment charge, namely the commission of either a “course of conduct” or “repeated[ ] . . . acts” (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]), was not preserved for our review by a timely and specific objection and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. To the extent respondent contends that the incident in June 2007 did not occur, no basis exists to disturb the court’s credibility findings (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

—Order of protection, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2008, which directed respondent, inter alia, to stay away from petitioner for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s contention that there was legally insufficient [512]*512evidence to establish an element of the second-degree harassment charge, namely the commission of either a “course of conduct” or “repeated[ ] . . . acts” (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]), was not preserved for our review by a timely and specific objection and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. To the extent respondent contends that the incident in June 2007 did not occur, no basis exists to disturb the court’s credibility findings (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 511, 893 N.Y.S.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathy-ec-v-fred-t-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack