Lisa S. v. Raymond S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lisa S. v. Raymond S.

77 A.D.3d 557, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 557 (Lisa S. v. Raymond S.) 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

Lisa S. v. Raymond S., 77 A.D.3d 557, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2009, which, upon a finding that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree, granted petitioner’s application for an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the hearing supported the court’s determination that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of the order of protection (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1]; § 240.26 [3]; see also Family Ct Act § 812). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]). Any error in admitting hearsay testimony that respondent abused his younger sibling was harmless, as the court expressly limited its decision to respondent’s actions towards petitioner alone (see e.g. Matter of Daniel R. v Noel R., 195 AD2d 704, 708 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2009, which, upon a finding that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree, granted petitioner’s application for an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the hearing supported the court’s determination that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of the order of protection (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1]; § 240.26 [3]; see also Family Ct Act § 812). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]). Any error in admitting hearsay testimony that respondent abused his younger sibling was harmless, as the court expressly limited its decision to respondent’s actions towards petitioner alone (see e.g. Matter of Daniel R. v Noel R., 195 AD2d 704, 708 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 557, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisa-s-v-raymond-s-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack