Sarah McL. v. Clarence L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarah McL. v. Clarence L.

111 A.D.3d 446, 974 N.Y.S.2d 778

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 446 (Sarah McL. v. Clarence L.) 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

Sarah McL. v. Clarence L., 111 A.D.3d 446, 974 N.Y.S.2d 778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, New York County, (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the Family Court may have erred in precluding testimony regarding threats that respondent allegedly made toward petitioner in 2009 and 2010 since the previous petition was concluded by stipulation, on consent of the parties, and the issues were not adjudicated on the merits (see Brown v Keating, 166 AD2d 220, 220 [1st Dept 1990]), the court carefully evaluated the testimony concerning the most recent claims and found the petitioner to not be credible. Thus, we see no reason to disturb the court’s findings and conclusions. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, New York County, (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition seeking an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the Family Court may have erred in precluding testimony regarding threats that respondent allegedly made toward petitioner in 2009 and 2010 since the previous petition was concluded by stipulation, on consent of the parties, and the issues were not adjudicated on the merits (see Brown v Keating, 166 AD2d 220, 220 [1st Dept 1990]), the court carefully evaluated the testimony concerning the most recent claims and found the petitioner to not be credible. Thus, we see no reason to disturb the court’s findings and conclusions. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 446, 974 N.Y.S.2d 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarah-mcl-v-clarence-l-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack