Matter of Iskritsa O. v. Steven Michael U.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Iskritsa O. v. Steven Michael U.

123 A.D.3d 444, 996 N.Y.S.2d 527

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket13657

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 444 (Matter of Iskritsa O. v. Steven Michael U.) 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 Iskritsa O. v. Steven Michael U., 123 A.D.3d 444, 996 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2013, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent’s actions did not rise to *445 the family offense of either harassment in the second degree or aggravated harassment in the second degree is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]; Penal Law §§ 240.26 [1], [3]; 240.30). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s decision to credit respondent’s version of events over petitioner’s version (see Matter of Peter G. v Karleen K., 51 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2013, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent’s actions did not rise to *445 the family offense of either harassment in the second degree or aggravated harassment in the second degree is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]; Penal Law §§ 240.26 [1], [3]; 240.30). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s decision to credit respondent’s version of events over petitioner’s version (see Matter of Peter G. v Karleen K., 51 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2008]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 444, 996 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-iskritsa-o-v-steven-michael-u-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack