Louvaris v. Louvaris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Louvaris v. Louvaris

209 A.D.2d 524, 619 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11174

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 524 (Louvaris v. Louvaris) 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

Louvaris v. Louvaris, 209 A.D.2d 524, 619 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated January 31, 1992, which adjudged the appellant in contempt for willful violation of an order of protection of the same court, and directed his incarceration for a period of 30 days.

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

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 entered the petitioner’s garage to retrieve some property.

The appellant has already served his sentence, and therefore the issue of whether it was harsh or excessive is academic (see, People v Mathison, 175 AD2d 966). We have considered [525]*525the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated January 31, 1992, which adjudged the appellant in contempt for willful violation of an order of protection of the same court, and directed his incarceration for a period of 30 days.

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

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 entered the petitioner’s garage to retrieve some property.

The appellant has already served his sentence, and therefore the issue of whether it was harsh or excessive is academic (see, People v Mathison, 175 AD2d 966). We have considered [525]*525the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 524, 619 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louvaris-v-louvaris-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack