Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A.

126 A.D.3d 492, 2 N.Y.S.3d 799

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

Docket10724

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 492 (Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A.) 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 Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 126 A.D.3d 492, 2 N.Y.S.3d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ivy I. Cook, Referee), entered on or about February 4, 2011, which after a hearing, determined that appellant had committed acts that constituted harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26), and granted petitioner a two-year order of protection directing appellant to, inter alia, stay away from her home, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832) supports the referee’s finding that appellant committed acts constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 842). The evidence demonstrates that, following an argument, appellant pushed petitioner, an 87-year-old woman, and then threatened her, and we find no basis for disturbing the referee’s credibility determinations (see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]).

There is no merit to appellant’s claim that the referee improperly assumed the role of advocate for the petitioner. Rather, the referee properly asked questions throughout the proceedings that “advance [d] the goals of truth and clarity” (see People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 68 [2002]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ivy I. Cook, Referee), entered on or about February 4, 2011, which after a hearing, determined that appellant had committed acts that constituted harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26), and granted petitioner a two-year order of protection directing appellant to, inter alia, stay away from her home, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832) supports the referee’s finding that appellant committed acts constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 842). The evidence demonstrates that, following an argument, appellant pushed petitioner, an 87-year-old woman, and then threatened her, and we find no basis for disturbing the referee’s credibility determinations (see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]).

There is no merit to appellant’s claim that the referee improperly assumed the role of advocate for the petitioner. Rather, the referee properly asked questions throughout the proceedings that “advance [d] the goals of truth and clarity” (see People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 68 [2002]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 492, 2 N.Y.S.3d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-veronica-p-v-radcliff-a-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack