Larson v. Gilliam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larson v. Gilliam

49 A.D.3d 650, 852 N.Y.2d 808

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2008·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Whether the appellant committed family offenses was a disputed factual issue. The determination of the Family Court regarding the credibility of witnesses, as the trier of fact, is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Rankoth v Sloan, 44 AD3d 863 [2007]; Matter of Dancer v Robertson, 38 AD3d 887 [2007]). The fair preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court’s determination, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two separate offenses of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]; Matter of Bonsignore v Bonsignore, 37 AD3d 602 [2007]).

The appellant’s contention that the Family Court erred in admitting certain letters into evidence was not preserved for appellate review.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Whether the appellant committed family offenses was a disputed factual issue. The determination of the Family Court regarding the credibility of witnesses, as the trier of fact, is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Rankoth v Sloan, 44 AD3d 863 [2007]; Matter of Dancer v Robertson, 38 AD3d 887 [2007]). The fair preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court’s determination, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two separate offenses of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]; Matter of Bonsignore v Bonsignore, 37 AD3d 602 [2007]).

The appellant’s contention that the Family Court erred in admitting certain letters into evidence was not preserved for appellate review.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Larson v. Gilliam, 49 A.D.3d 650, 852 N.Y.2d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 650 (Larson v. Gilliam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related