Matter of Ironelys A. v. Jose A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ironelys A. v. Jose A.

140 A.D.3d 473, 31 N.Y.S.3d 878

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

DecidedJune 9, 2016

Docket1415

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 473 (Matter of Ironelys A. v. Jose A.) 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 Ironelys A. v. Jose A., 140 A.D.3d 473, 31 N.Y.S.3d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), *474 entered on or about November 6, 2015, which denied petitioner’s application for an extension of an order of protection issued against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause pursuant to Family Court Act § 842 to show that an extension of the order of protection was necessary in order to prevent a recurrence of domestic violence. Respondent has complied with the initial order of protection, and there have been no incidents or violations claimed by petitioner, and no specific claims of fear of continued violence. It is also notable that when respondent picked up the parties’ child, it was done at petitioner’s residence and not at a police precinct (compare Matter of Molloy v Molloy, 137 AD3d 47, 53-54 [2d Dept 2016]).

Furthermore, petitioner failed to cite any issues that would have required further elaboration or any additional facts that would have warranted a hearing under the circumstances.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), *474 entered on or about November 6, 2015, which denied petitioner’s application for an extension of an order of protection issued against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause pursuant to Family Court Act § 842 to show that an extension of the order of protection was necessary in order to prevent a recurrence of domestic violence. Respondent has complied with the initial order of protection, and there have been no incidents or violations claimed by petitioner, and no specific claims of fear of continued violence. It is also notable that when respondent picked up the parties’ child, it was done at petitioner’s residence and not at a police precinct (compare Matter of Molloy v Molloy, 137 AD3d 47, 53-54 [2d Dept 2016]).

Furthermore, petitioner failed to cite any issues that would have required further elaboration or any additional facts that would have warranted a hearing under the circumstances.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 473, 31 N.Y.S.3d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ironelys-a-v-jose-a-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack