Maria C. v. Jaime G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maria C. v. Jaime G.

102 A.D.3d 518, 957 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 518 (Maria C. v. Jaime 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

Maria C. v. Jaime G., 102 A.D.3d 518, 957 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 31, 2011, which dismissed the family offense petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[519]*519Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense (Family Ct Act § 832). Petitioner is correct that the court erred in taking judicial notice of post-petition orders of protection issued against her in favor of respondent (see Matter of Ungar v Ungar, 80 AD3d 771 [2d Dept 2011]). However, in light of the court’s finding that petitioner’s testimony was incredible, the error was harmless (see Matter of Dakota CC. [Arthur CC.], 78 AD3d 1430 [3d Dept 2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 31, 2011, which dismissed the family offense petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[519]*519Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed a family offense (Family Ct Act § 832). Petitioner is correct that the court erred in taking judicial notice of post-petition orders of protection issued against her in favor of respondent (see Matter of Ungar v Ungar, 80 AD3d 771 [2d Dept 2011]). However, in light of the court’s finding that petitioner’s testimony was incredible, the error was harmless (see Matter of Dakota CC. [Arthur CC.], 78 AD3d 1430 [3d Dept 2010]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 518, 957 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-c-v-jaime-g-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack