Muldavin v. Muldavin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muldavin v. Muldavin

248 A.D.2d 209, 670 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2447

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 209 (Muldavin v. Muldavin) 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

Muldavin v. Muldavin, 248 A.D.2d 209, 670 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner wife’s application for an order of protection, inter alia, directing respondent husband to stay away from petitioner and the marital residence for 1 year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court found that respondent’s conduct, specifically, throwing a cup of coffee at petitioner, threatening to strike her with a cane, choking her, striking her, and grabbing her neck while threatening to kill her, justified entry of the subject order of protection. We agree (see, Matter of Quintana v Quintana, 237 AD2d 130). Family Court’s factual and credibility findings are entitled to deference (Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767), and are, in any case, well supported by the hearing record. Nor, contrary to respondent’s assertion, did the court violate respondent’s due process right to a full and fair hearing by imposing limits on respondent’s counsel during his cross-examination of petitioner. The court properly exercised its discretion in controlling the nature and extent of that cross-examination (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244).

[210]*210We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner wife’s application for an order of protection, inter alia, directing respondent husband to stay away from petitioner and the marital residence for 1 year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court found that respondent’s conduct, specifically, throwing a cup of coffee at petitioner, threatening to strike her with a cane, choking her, striking her, and grabbing her neck while threatening to kill her, justified entry of the subject order of protection. We agree (see, Matter of Quintana v Quintana, 237 AD2d 130). Family Court’s factual and credibility findings are entitled to deference (Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767), and are, in any case, well supported by the hearing record. Nor, contrary to respondent’s assertion, did the court violate respondent’s due process right to a full and fair hearing by imposing limits on respondent’s counsel during his cross-examination of petitioner. The court properly exercised its discretion in controlling the nature and extent of that cross-examination (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244).

[210]*210We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 209, 670 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muldavin-v-muldavin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack