Matter of Aly T. v. Francisco B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Aly T. v. Francisco B.

139 A.D.3d 597, 32 N.Y.S.3d 152

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

DecidedMay 26, 2016

Docket1253

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 597 (Matter of Aly T. v. Francisco B.) 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

Matter of Aly T. v. Francisco B., 139 A.D.3d 597, 32 N.Y.S.3d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Lauren N. Lerner, Ref.), entered on or about July 28, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent, the father of two of her children, committed any of the family offenses alleged in the petition, including harassment in the second degree, so as to justify the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Mildred R. v Elizabeth R., 131 AD3d 892 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 913 [2015]). Although petitioner’s testimony and evidence as to the photograph posted on respondent’s Facebook page meets the definition in common parlance of harassment, it does not sufficiently demonstrate that respondent committed acts that would constitute harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see also Family Ct Act § 812 [1]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Lauren N. Lerner, Ref.), entered on or about July 28, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent, the father of two of her children, committed any of the family offenses alleged in the petition, including harassment in the second degree, so as to justify the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Mildred R. v Elizabeth R., 131 AD3d 892 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 913 [2015]). Although petitioner’s testimony and evidence as to the photograph posted on respondent’s Facebook page meets the definition in common parlance of harassment, it does not sufficiently demonstrate that respondent committed acts that would constitute harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see also Family Ct Act § 812 [1]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 597, 32 N.Y.S.3d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-aly-t-v-francisco-b-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack