Matter of Juana R. v. Chelsea R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Juana R. v. Chelsea R.

2017 NY Slip Op 7546, 154 A.D.3d 613, 62 N.Y.S.3d 785

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2017

Docket4853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7546 (Matter of Juana R. v. Chelsea R.) 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 Juana R. v. Chelsea R., 2017 NY Slip Op 7546, 154 A.D.3d 613, 62 N.Y.S.3d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about March 18, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and issued a one year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied.

Although the order of protection has expired, in light of the consequences that may flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not moot (Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 671-672 [2015]).

When granting the petition, Family Court found only that the parties were not “getting along.” The court failed to find that a family offense had been committed, or that respondent had committed acts that constituted a particular family offense. The lack of requisite factual findings precludes appellate review (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024 [1979]), and it would be fruitless to remit for a new hearing and entry of factual findings, as the order of protection has expired by its terms.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, 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.), entered on or about March 18, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and issued a one year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied.

Although the order of protection has expired, in light of the consequences that may flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not moot (Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 671-672 [2015]).

When granting the petition, Family Court found only that the parties were not “getting along.” The court failed to find that a family offense had been committed, or that respondent had committed acts that constituted a particular family offense. The lack of requisite factual findings precludes appellate review (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024 [1979]), and it would be fruitless to remit for a new hearing and entry of factual findings, as the order of protection has expired by its terms.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7546, 154 A.D.3d 613, 62 N.Y.S.3d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-juana-r-v-chelsea-r-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack