Ramona R. v. Morris G.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramona R. v. Morris G.C.

129 A.D.3d 594, 10 N.Y.S.3d 441

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

DecidedJune 23, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 594 (Ramona R. v. Morris G.C.) 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

Ramona R. v. Morris G.C., 129 A.D.3d 594, 10 N.Y.S.3d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[595]*595Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts amounting to harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Gloria C. v Josephine I., 106 AD3d 630 [1st Dept 2013]; Penal Law § 240.26). The court’s finding that the father touched the mother only to separate her from their child, who was upset by her refusal to stop bathing him, is supported by the evidence, and there is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

[595]*595Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts amounting to harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Gloria C. v Josephine I., 106 AD3d 630 [1st Dept 2013]; Penal Law § 240.26). The court’s finding that the father touched the mother only to separate her from their child, who was upset by her refusal to stop bathing him, is supported by the evidence, and there is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 594, 10 N.Y.S.3d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramona-r-v-morris-gc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack