Strully v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strully v. Schwartz

255 A.D.2d 593, 680 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12854

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1998·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered August 12, 1997, as, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition for a permanent order of protection upon determining that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the father committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the second degree or assault in the third degree (see, Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Ross v Ross, 152 AD2d 580). The determination as to whether the father committed such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of Campbell v Desir, 251 AD2d 402; Matter of Platsky v Platsky, 237 AD2d 610). Its determination was supported by the evidence.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered August 12, 1997, as, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition for a permanent order of protection upon determining that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the father committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the second degree or assault in the third degree (see, Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Ross v Ross, 152 AD2d 580). The determination as to whether the father committed such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of Campbell v Desir, 251 AD2d 402; Matter of Platsky v Platsky, 237 AD2d 610). Its determination was supported by the evidence.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Strully v. Schwartz, 255 A.D.2d 593, 680 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 593 (Strully v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related