Scioscia v. Scioscia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scioscia v. Scioscia

89 A.D.3d 739, 931 N.Y.2d 892

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 739 (Scioscia v. Scioscia) 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

Scioscia v. Scioscia, 89 A.D.3d 739, 931 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 19, 2011, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow [740]*740from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Willis v Rhinehart, 76 AD3d 641, 642 [2010]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]).

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Bibolova v Radu, 82 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2011]; see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010] ). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933, 934 [2011]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011] ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 19, 2011, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow [740]*740from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Willis v Rhinehart, 76 AD3d 641, 642 [2010]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]).

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Bibolova v Radu, 82 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2011]; see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010] ). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933, 934 [2011]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011] ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 739, 931 N.Y.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scioscia-v-scioscia-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack