Matter of Edward B. v. Elizabeth T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Edward B. v. Elizabeth T.

2017 NY Slip Op 8482, 156 A.D.3d 423, 64 N.Y.S.3d 519, 2017 WL 6001678

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2017·No. 5131·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Wein-stein, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2016, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against petitioner, granted a two-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s finding that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Matter of Marcela H-A. v Azouhouni A., 132 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2015]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]). Petitioner was shocked, embarrassed and alarmed to be the subject of several emails sent by respondent, which placed his job in jeopardy and served no legitimate purpose, particularly considering that they were sent years after the parties’ relationship had ended (compare Matter of Donna C. v Kuni C., 148 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2017]).

The Family Court’s determination that respondent was not a credible or plausible witness is entitled to great deference, and should not be disturbed on appeal (Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, J.J.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Wein-stein, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2016, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against petitioner, granted a two-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s finding that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Matter of Marcela H-A. v Azouhouni A., 132 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2015]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]). Petitioner was shocked, embarrassed and alarmed to be the subject of several emails sent by respondent, which placed his job in jeopardy and served no legitimate purpose, particularly considering that they were sent years after the parties’ relationship had ended (compare Matter of Donna C. v Kuni C., 148 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2017]).

The Family Court’s determination that respondent was not a credible or plausible witness is entitled to great deference, and should not be disturbed on appeal (Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, J.J.

Matter of Edward B. v. Elizabeth T., 2017 NY Slip Op 8482, 156 A.D.3d 423, 64 N.Y.S.3d 519, 2017 WL 6001678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 8482 (Matter of Edward B. v. Elizabeth T.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related