Kurkcu v. Cokyuksel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurkcu v. Cokyuksel

31 A.D.3d 554

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 11, 2006·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated May 19, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Onuoha v Onuoha, 28 AD3d 563 [2006]; Matter of Charles v Charles, 21 AD3d 487 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]). Here, the Family Court’s determination hinged on issues of credibility, and we find no basis to disturb it. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Covello, 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 from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated May 19, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Onuoha v Onuoha, 28 AD3d 563 [2006]; Matter of Charles v Charles, 21 AD3d 487 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]). Here, the Family Court’s determination hinged on issues of credibility, and we find no basis to disturb it. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

Kurkcu v. Cokyuksel, 31 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

31 A.D.3d 554 (Kurkcu v. Cokyuksel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related