Matter of Thomas-James v. James

136 A.D.3d 675, 23 N.Y.S.3d 909
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2016
Docket2014-05853
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 675 (Matter of Thomas-James v. James) 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 Thomas-James v. James, 136 A.D.3d 675, 23 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (William J. Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 5, 2014. The order of protection, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the respondent to stay away from the petitioner for a period of five years.

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

The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against the respondent pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. After a hearing, the Family Court issued an order of protection, inter alia, directing the respondent to stay away from the petitioner for a period of five years.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that 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” (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]; see Matter of Medranda v Mondelli, 74 AD3d 972 [2010]; Matter of Delano v Desimone, 60 AD3d 673, 673-674 [2009]). Here, the court was presented with the sharply conflicting testimony from the parties regarding the events that occurred on the subject date. The court’s determination to credit the testimony of the petitioner in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a family offense had been committed is supported by the record and, thus, will not be disturbed.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Azad v. Azad
2016 NY Slip Op 7188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 675, 23 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-thomas-james-v-james-nyappdiv-2016.