Marte v. Biondo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marte v. Biondo

116 A.D.3d 957, 983 N.Y.S.2d 819

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

DecidedApril 23, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 957 (Marte v. Biondo) 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

Marte v. Biondo, 116 A.D.3d 957, 983 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

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 (Jolly, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed her petition.

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

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the [trial] [c]curt, 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” (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]; see Matter of King v Edwards, 92 AD3d 783, 784 [2012]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish that the respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Mamantov v Mamantov, 86 AD3d 540 [2011]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

[958]*958Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition. Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, 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 (Jolly, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed her petition.

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

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the [trial] [c]curt, 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” (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]; see Matter of King v Edwards, 92 AD3d 783, 784 [2012]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish that the respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Mamantov v Mamantov, 86 AD3d 540 [2011]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

[958]*958Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition. Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 957, 983 N.Y.S.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marte-v-biondo-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack