Matter of Davis v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Davis v. Wright

140 A.D.3d 752, 30 N.Y.S.3d 922

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

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2015-01160

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 752 (Matter of Davis v. Wright) 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 Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d 752, 30 N.Y.S.3d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, *753 Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 3, 2015. The order, after a hearing, dismissed with prejudice the petitioner’s family offense petition against the respondent.

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

The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the respondent, his uncle, alleging that during an argument while the petitioner was visiting at the respondent’s residence, the respondent verbally abused and insulted him, and threw a drinking glass, striking him in the right shoulder. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the credible evidence failed to support a finding that a family offense was committed, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Buskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544 [2013]). Whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination of credibility issues is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov, 134 AD3d 1122 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court did not err in finding that the credible evidence failed to establish that the respondent committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.00) and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26). The court’s credibility determinations are supported by the record, and we discern no basis for disturbing the order dismissing the petition with prejudice (see Matter of Little v Renz, 137 AD3d 916 [2016]; Matter of Buskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, *753 Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 3, 2015. The order, after a hearing, dismissed with prejudice the petitioner’s family offense petition against the respondent.

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

The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the respondent, his uncle, alleging that during an argument while the petitioner was visiting at the respondent’s residence, the respondent verbally abused and insulted him, and threw a drinking glass, striking him in the right shoulder. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the credible evidence failed to support a finding that a family offense was committed, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Buskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544 [2013]). Whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination of credibility issues is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov, 134 AD3d 1122 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court did not err in finding that the credible evidence failed to establish that the respondent committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.00) and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26). The court’s credibility determinations are supported by the record, and we discern no basis for disturbing the order dismissing the petition with prejudice (see Matter of Little v Renz, 137 AD3d 916 [2016]; Matter of Buskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 752, 30 N.Y.S.3d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-davis-v-wright-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack