Luke v. Luke

72 A.D.3d 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 6, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 689 (Luke v. Luke) 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
Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated July 8, 2009, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

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

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Holder v Francis, 67 AD3d 679 [2009]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Fernandez v Pacheco, 59 AD3d 542, 543 [2009]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909 [2008]; Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]). Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the respondent assaulted or attempted to assault the petitioner during the course of the subject incident. The Family Court’s determination that the petitioner had failed to establish that a family offense was committed was based solely upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties and of an eyewitness, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d at 756; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d at 824; Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842, 843 [2007]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Vargas v. Calle
2025 NY Slip Op 05088 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Royal v. Royal
2020 NY Slip Op 06130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Vella v. Dillman
2018 NY Slip Op 2636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tulshi v. Tulshi
118 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Streat v. Streat
117 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Cabeza v. Cabeza
107 A.D.3d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Winfield v. Gammons
105 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Krisztina K. v. John S.
103 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kaur v. Singh
101 A.D.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Sepulveda v. Perez
90 A.D.3d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
DosReis v. Rousseau
85 A.D.3d 1028 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Lamparillo v. Lamparillo
84 A.D.3d 1381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Opray v. Fitzharris
84 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mrsic v. Kwak Yen Kwan
80 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Testman v. Roman
78 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Richardson v. Richardson
80 A.D.3d 32 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.3d 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-v-luke-nyappdiv-2010.