Matter of Nunez v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Nunez v. Diaz

2016 NY Slip Op 8364, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 910

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2016

Docket2015-12383

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8364 (Matter of Nunez v. Diaz) 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 Nunez v. Diaz, 2016 NY Slip Op 8364, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of disposition the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated July 10, 2015. The order of disposition, after a hearing, dismissed the petitioner’s family offense petition.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that the respondent was her nephew and that he committed various family offenses against her. After a hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals.

“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Batista v Iqbal, 128 AD3d 1063 [2015]; Matter of Cole v Muirhead, 125 AD3d 964 [2015]). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050 [2014]). The hearing court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Maiorino v Maiorino, 107 AD3d 717 [2013]).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct committed by the respondent in 2012 and 2014 constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree or disorderly conduct (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Matter of Little v Renz, 137 AD3d 916 [2016]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050 [2014]; Matter of Shiffman v Handler, 115 AD3d 753 [2014]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of disposition the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated July 10, 2015. The order of disposition, after a hearing, dismissed the petitioner’s family offense petition.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that the respondent was her nephew and that he committed various family offenses against her. After a hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals.

“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Batista v Iqbal, 128 AD3d 1063 [2015]; Matter of Cole v Muirhead, 125 AD3d 964 [2015]). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050 [2014]). The hearing court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Maiorino v Maiorino, 107 AD3d 717 [2013]).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct committed by the respondent in 2012 and 2014 constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree or disorderly conduct (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Matter of Little v Renz, 137 AD3d 916 [2016]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050 [2014]; Matter of Shiffman v Handler, 115 AD3d 753 [2014]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8364, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nunez-v-diaz-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack