Kraus v. Kraus

26 A.D.3d 494, 809 N.Y.S.2d 471
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 494 (Kraus v. Kraus) 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
Kraus v. Kraus, 26 A.D.3d 494, 809 N.Y.S.2d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated August 23, 2004, which, after a hearing, found that he committed family offenses, and granted the petitioner an order of protection until August 23, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted an order of protection until August 23, 2005, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Because the order of protection has expired by its own terms, the appeal from so much of the order as concerns the order of [495]*495protection must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Cardarelli v Cardarelli, 277 AD2d 225 [2000]). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]), and that determination is entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of De La Cruz v Colon, 16 AD3d 496 [2005]), as is the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses (see Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613 [2000]; Matter of Hallissey v Hallissey, 261 AD2d 544 [1999]; Matter of Dendy v Bonelli, 260 AD2d 633 [1999]). The Family Court properly determined that the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the husband committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment and disorderly conduct warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Wissink v Wissink, 13 AD3d 461 [2004]; Matter of Charlene J.R. v Walter A.M., 307 AD2d 1038 [2003]). Adams, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Espinal v. Burton
2018 NY Slip Op 8296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Hon v. Tin Yat Chin
117 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Parameswar v. Parameswar
109 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cassie v. Cassie
109 A.D.3d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Panico v. Panico
100 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mrsic v. Kwak Yen Kwan
80 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Pearlman v. Pearlman
78 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Testman v. Roman
78 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Greener v. Greener
77 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ciccone v. Ciccone
73 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Thomas v. Thomas
72 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gowrie v. Squires
71 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Holder v. Francis
67 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Sblendorio v. D'Agostino
60 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum
59 A.D.3d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Barilo v. Milman
56 A.D.2d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gray v. Gray
55 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Asgedom v. Asgedom
51 A.D.3d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bartley v. Bartley
48 A.D.3d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hall v. Hall
45 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 494, 809 N.Y.S.2d 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraus-v-kraus-nyappdiv-2006.