Matter of Jasmine E.C. (Gabriel J.C.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jasmine E.C. (Gabriel J.C.)

140 A.D.3d 440, 31 N.Y.S.3d 868

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

DecidedJune 7, 2016

Docket1377

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 440 (Matter of Jasmine E.C. (Gabriel J.C.)) 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 Jasmine E.C. (Gabriel J.C.), 140 A.D.3d 440, 31 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about July 24, 2015, after a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the court credited petitioner’s testimony as to the “frightening” history of violence and harassment to which respondent subjected her, it did not make an express finding *441 that respondent committed any of the family offenses asserted in the petition. However, a fair preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that respondent committed harassment in the second degree and menacing in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 240.26 [2], [3]; 120.14 [2]; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2d Dept 2010]). The court found credible petitioner’s testimony that, in violation of prior orders of protection, respondent followed her wherever she went, including on the train and popping out of bushes; tracked her down through Facebook, causing her to relocate to a shelter and to hide from him out of fear for her safety and that of her children; and harassed her by photographing her and her son during a court appearance. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination crediting petitioner’s version of events over that of respondent (Matter of William M. v Elba Q., 121 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Muldavin v Muldavin, 248 AD2d 209 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about July 24, 2015, after a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the court credited petitioner’s testimony as to the “frightening” history of violence and harassment to which respondent subjected her, it did not make an express finding *441 that respondent committed any of the family offenses asserted in the petition. However, a fair preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that respondent committed harassment in the second degree and menacing in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 240.26 [2], [3]; 120.14 [2]; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2d Dept 2010]). The court found credible petitioner’s testimony that, in violation of prior orders of protection, respondent followed her wherever she went, including on the train and popping out of bushes; tracked her down through Facebook, causing her to relocate to a shelter and to hide from him out of fear for her safety and that of her children; and harassed her by photographing her and her son during a court appearance. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination crediting petitioner’s version of events over that of respondent (Matter of William M. v Elba Q., 121 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Muldavin v Muldavin, 248 AD2d 209 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 440, 31 N.Y.S.3d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jasmine-ec-gabriel-jc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack