Smith v. Antonio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Antonio

239 A.D.2d 509, 658 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332

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

DecidedMay 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 509 (Smith v. Antonio) 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

Smith v. Antonio, 239 A.D.2d 509, 658 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 to obtain an order of protection, Rudolfo Antonio appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hepner, J.), dated June 8, 1995, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, directed him not to "assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger or engage in disorderly conduct toward Petitioner”.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s findings that the appellant committed acts which constituted a family offense under Family Court Act article 8. The question of whether the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve and the determination of the Family Court, as the trier of fact regarding credibility of witnesses, is entitled to great weight. The record supports the court’s determination that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition, as amended (see, e.g., Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767; see also, Matter of Greenberg v Greenberg, 226 AD2d 463; see generally, People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325; Dioguardi v City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 798; People v Early, 85 AD2d 752). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 to obtain an order of protection, Rudolfo Antonio appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hepner, J.), dated June 8, 1995, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, directed him not to "assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger or engage in disorderly conduct toward Petitioner”.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s findings that the appellant committed acts which constituted a family offense under Family Court Act article 8. The question of whether the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve and the determination of the Family Court, as the trier of fact regarding credibility of witnesses, is entitled to great weight. The record supports the court’s determination that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition, as amended (see, e.g., Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767; see also, Matter of Greenberg v Greenberg, 226 AD2d 463; see generally, People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325; Dioguardi v City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 798; People v Early, 85 AD2d 752). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 509, 658 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-antonio-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack