Lentino v. Lentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lentino v. Lentino

185 A.D.2d 849, 587 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9889

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 10, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Feiden, J.), dated December 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, found that the respondent was in willful violation of an order of protection dated April 25, 1991, and sentenced him to a term of 30 days in the Nassau County Correctional Facility.

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

The appellant contends that the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support the Family Court’s finding that he willfully violated the order of protection. This contention is without merit. The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by competent proof, that the appellant willfully violated the order of protection (see, Family Ct Act § 846-a) when he went to the petitioner’s residence without her permission, demanded money from her, and engaged in disruptive behavior (see, Matter of Leonetti v Riehl, 154 AD2d 675, 676).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Feiden, J.), dated December 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, found that the respondent was in willful violation of an order of protection dated April 25, 1991, and sentenced him to a term of 30 days in the Nassau County Correctional Facility.

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

The appellant contends that the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support the Family Court’s finding that he willfully violated the order of protection. This contention is without merit. The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by competent proof, that the appellant willfully violated the order of protection (see, Family Ct Act § 846-a) when he went to the petitioner’s residence without her permission, demanded money from her, and engaged in disruptive behavior (see, Matter of Leonetti v Riehl, 154 AD2d 675, 676).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Lentino v. Lentino, 185 A.D.2d 849, 587 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

185 A.D.2d 849 (Lentino v. Lentino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related