Loreene C. v. Aaron G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loreene C. v. Aaron G.

48 A.D.3d 293, 850 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 293 (Loreene C. v. Aaron G.) 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

Loreene C. v. Aaron G., 48 A.D.3d 293, 850 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma [294]*294Cordova, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2006, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied Loreene C.’s petition for an order of protection against Aaron G. and granted Althea G.’s petition for an order of protection against Loreene C., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s argument that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to lack of time for preparation is without merit. She has failed to demonstrate that further investigation would have led to the discovery of additional evidence or witnesses on her behalf, and has failed to set forth how the representation she received was not meaningful (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma [294]*294Cordova, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2006, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied Loreene C.’s petition for an order of protection against Aaron G. and granted Althea G.’s petition for an order of protection against Loreene C., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s argument that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to lack of time for preparation is without merit. She has failed to demonstrate that further investigation would have led to the discovery of additional evidence or witnesses on her behalf, and has failed to set forth how the representation she received was not meaningful (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 293, 850 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loreene-c-v-aaron-g-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack