Matter of Erica R. v. LaQueenia S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Erica R. v. LaQueenia S.

139 A.D.3d 422, 30 N.Y.S.3d 108

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

DecidedMay 3, 2016

Docket1042

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 422 (Matter of Erica R. v. LaQueenia S.) 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 Erica R. v. LaQueenia S., 139 A.D.3d 422, 30 N.Y.S.3d 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*423 Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2014, which, upon a finding that respondent had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct, directed her to, among other things, stay away from petitioner for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding, based on the intimate, familial relationship between the parties {see Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Petitioner is the foster mother of respondent’s child and the sister of the child’s father, and the parties had frequent communication and interaction over the years.

A fair preponderance of the evidence established that respondent had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct (Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1], [2]; 240.20). Petitioner testified that respondent lunged at her and threw a punch in her direction from less than a foot away during a supervised visitation with the child, and that respondent called and threatened petitioner the following day. Although respondent denied that she intended to hit petitioner during the visitation, she admitted that she was angry at petitioner, that they directed obscene language at each other, and that she was escorted from the premises by the police. Family Court credited petitioner’s testimony over respondent’s, and its credibility determination is entitled to deference (see Matter of Marcela H-A. v Azouhouni A., 132 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

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

*423 Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2014, which, upon a finding that respondent had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct, directed her to, among other things, stay away from petitioner for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding, based on the intimate, familial relationship between the parties {see Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Petitioner is the foster mother of respondent’s child and the sister of the child’s father, and the parties had frequent communication and interaction over the years.

A fair preponderance of the evidence established that respondent had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct (Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1], [2]; 240.20). Petitioner testified that respondent lunged at her and threw a punch in her direction from less than a foot away during a supervised visitation with the child, and that respondent called and threatened petitioner the following day. Although respondent denied that she intended to hit petitioner during the visitation, she admitted that she was angry at petitioner, that they directed obscene language at each other, and that she was escorted from the premises by the police. Family Court credited petitioner’s testimony over respondent’s, and its credibility determination is entitled to deference (see Matter of Marcela H-A. v Azouhouni A., 132 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 422, 30 N.Y.S.3d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-erica-r-v-laqueenia-s-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack