Sellers v. Sellers-Boykin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sellers v. Sellers-Boykin

72 A.D.3d 832, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466

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

DecidedApril 13, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 832 (Sellers v. Sellers-Boykin) 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

Sellers v. Sellers-Boykin, 72 A.D.3d 832, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 18, 2009, which granted the wife’s motion, made at the close of his case, to dismiss the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, and vacated a temporary order of protection of the same court (Tarantino, J.) dated February 11, 2009.

Ordered that the order dated May 18, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence proffered in support of the petition failed to establish that the wife committed the family offenses of criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, or harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 145.00, 240.20, 240.26). Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 18, 2009, which granted the wife’s motion, made at the close of his case, to dismiss the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, and vacated a temporary order of protection of the same court (Tarantino, J.) dated February 11, 2009.

Ordered that the order dated May 18, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence proffered in support of the petition failed to establish that the wife committed the family offenses of criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, or harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law §§ 145.00, 240.20, 240.26). Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 832, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellers-v-sellers-boykin-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack