Peter G. v. Karleen K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peter G. v. Karleen K.

51 A.D.3d 541, 856 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedMay 22, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 541 (Peter G. v. Karleen K.) 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

Peter G. v. Karleen K., 51 A.D.3d 541, 856 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[542]*542Order, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered December 5, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing, in this proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the petition where the evidence failed to establish by a fair preponderance thereof that respondent committed acts that would constitute assault in the third degree during an incident where the parties’ five-year-old son would not willingly attend a weekend visit with petitioner (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 120.00). There exists no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Smith v Smith, 308 AD2d 592 [2003]).

We decline to review petitioner’s request that the Family Court Judge be recused and that his custody petition be assigned to a different judge, since this issue is raised for the first time on appeal. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[542]*542Order, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered December 5, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing, in this proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the petition where the evidence failed to establish by a fair preponderance thereof that respondent committed acts that would constitute assault in the third degree during an incident where the parties’ five-year-old son would not willingly attend a weekend visit with petitioner (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 120.00). There exists no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Smith v Smith, 308 AD2d 592 [2003]).

We decline to review petitioner’s request that the Family Court Judge be recused and that his custody petition be assigned to a different judge, since this issue is raised for the first time on appeal. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 541, 856 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-g-v-karleen-k-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack