Saira A. v. Olga M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saira A. v. Olga M.

40 A.D.3d 243, 833 N.Y.S.2d 383

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

DecidedMay 1, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 243 (Saira A. v. Olga M.) 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

Saira A. v. Olga M., 40 A.D.3d 243, 833 N.Y.S.2d 383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2006, which granted a two-year order of protection in favor of petitioner and against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent concedes that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing supports the finding of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1], [3]). We reject respondent’s argument that where, at the time of the fact-finding hearing, the parties (daughter and mother) were no longer living together and had little if any contact, and no incidents had occurred since the last incident described in the petition, a dispositional hearing was required to determine the need for an order of protection (see Matter of Hazel P.R. v Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2006, which granted a two-year order of protection in favor of petitioner and against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent concedes that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing supports the finding of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1], [3]). We reject respondent’s argument that where, at the time of the fact-finding hearing, the parties (daughter and mother) were no longer living together and had little if any contact, and no incidents had occurred since the last incident described in the petition, a dispositional hearing was required to determine the need for an order of protection (see Matter of Hazel P.R. v Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 243, 833 N.Y.S.2d 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saira-a-v-olga-m-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack