Nezaj v. Brahimi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nezaj v. Brahimi

88 A.D.3d 723, 930 N.Y.2d 878

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 723 (Nezaj v. Brahimi) 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

Nezaj v. Brahimi, 88 A.D.3d 723, 930 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance [724]*724of the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court’s determination that he had committed certain family offenses, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 821 [1] [a]; § 832; Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933 [2011]; Matter of Amber JJ. v Michael KK., 82 AD3d 1558 [2011]). Moreover, the dismissal of criminal charges against the appellant that were based on certain conduct alleged in the family offense petition did not have a res judicata effect with respect to this family offense proceeding, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required (see Matter of Schneider v Arata, 81 AD3d 652, 653 [2011]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance [724]*724of the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court’s determination that he had committed certain family offenses, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 821 [1] [a]; § 832; Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933 [2011]; Matter of Amber JJ. v Michael KK., 82 AD3d 1558 [2011]). Moreover, the dismissal of criminal charges against the appellant that were based on certain conduct alleged in the family offense petition did not have a res judicata effect with respect to this family offense proceeding, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required (see Matter of Schneider v Arata, 81 AD3d 652, 653 [2011]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 723, 930 N.Y.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nezaj-v-brahimi-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack