Lillian A. v. Nicholas A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lillian A. v. Nicholas A.

131 A.D.3d 900, 16 N.Y.S.3d 728

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15736

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 900 (Lillian A. v. Nicholas A.) 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

Lillian A. v. Nicholas A., 131 A.D.3d 900, 16 N.Y.S.3d 728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Christopher W. Coffey, Referee), entered on or about May 22, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, among other things, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition, because petitioner failed to establish by a fair , preponderance of the evidence that respondent, her brother, had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in her favor (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). No basis exists to disturb the Family Court’s findings that respondent and two nonparty witnesses were more credible than petitioner (id.).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Christopher W. Coffey, Referee), entered on or about May 22, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, among other things, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition, because petitioner failed to establish by a fair , preponderance of the evidence that respondent, her brother, had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in her favor (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). No basis exists to disturb the Family Court’s findings that respondent and two nonparty witnesses were more credible than petitioner (id.).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 900, 16 N.Y.S.3d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lillian-a-v-nicholas-a-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack