Okpe v. Okpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Okpe v. Okpe

136 A.D.3d 511, 24 N.Y.S.3d 902

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

Docket212 307847/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 511 (Okpe v. Okpe) 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

Okpe v. Okpe, 136 A.D.3d 511, 24 N.Y.S.3d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen F. Gesmer, J.), entered April 21, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiff a three-year order of protection, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed acts warranting an order of protection in her favor (see Family Ct Act § 832). Plaintiff established that defendant committed the acts alleged in the petition, and the court’s determination is supported by the record (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen F. Gesmer, J.), entered April 21, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiff a three-year order of protection, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed acts warranting an order of protection in her favor (see Family Ct Act § 832). Plaintiff established that defendant committed the acts alleged in the petition, and the court’s determination is supported by the record (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 511, 24 N.Y.S.3d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okpe-v-okpe-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack