McGuffog v. Ginsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGuffog v. Ginsberg

266 A.D.2d 136, 699 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12330

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 136 (McGuffog v. Ginsberg) 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

McGuffog v. Ginsberg, 266 A.D.2d 136, 699 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered or on about May 10, 1999, which, upon a finding that respondent committed harassment in the second degree, with aggravating circumstances present, issued petitioner a three-year order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Preliminarily, we note that the order of protection was not entered on default since respondent was represented by counsel at the hearing (see, Silberman v Silberman, 216 AD2d 41), and is therefore appealable. Family Court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s attorney’s request for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing where respondent was personally served with the summons and counsel appeared on his behalf and was prepared to cross-examine petitioner.

The determination that respondent committed harassment in the second degree is supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record (see, Family Ct Act § 832). Respondent’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner may be inferred from his conduct, including his threats to assault her and his continued threatening and menacing manner even after others intervened (see, Penal Law § 240.26; People v Collins, 178 AD2d 789). The record also supports the finding of aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of a three-year order of protection (see, Family Ct Act § 842). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered or on about May 10, 1999, which, upon a finding that respondent committed harassment in the second degree, with aggravating circumstances present, issued petitioner a three-year order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Preliminarily, we note that the order of protection was not entered on default since respondent was represented by counsel at the hearing (see, Silberman v Silberman, 216 AD2d 41), and is therefore appealable. Family Court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s attorney’s request for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing where respondent was personally served with the summons and counsel appeared on his behalf and was prepared to cross-examine petitioner.

The determination that respondent committed harassment in the second degree is supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record (see, Family Ct Act § 832). Respondent’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner may be inferred from his conduct, including his threats to assault her and his continued threatening and menacing manner even after others intervened (see, Penal Law § 240.26; People v Collins, 178 AD2d 789). The record also supports the finding of aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of a three-year order of protection (see, Family Ct Act § 842). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 136, 699 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguffog-v-ginsberg-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack