Mader v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mader v. Johnson

74 A.D.3d 1342, 903 N.Y.S.2d 243

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

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1342 (Mader v. Johnson) 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

Mader v. Johnson, 74 A.D.3d 1342, 903 N.Y.S.2d 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (O’Connor, J.), dated March 19, 2009, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is denied, and the matter, is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The petitioner established that the respondent committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, by the respondent’s admission that he left several telephone messages for the petitioner threatening that he was going to “get her” (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.30; cf People v Dei, 2 AD3d 1459 [2003]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (O’Connor, J.), dated March 19, 2009, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is denied, and the matter, is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The petitioner established that the respondent committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, by the respondent’s admission that he left several telephone messages for the petitioner threatening that he was going to “get her” (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.30; cf People v Dei, 2 AD3d 1459 [2003]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1342, 903 N.Y.S.2d 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mader-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack