Tammy J.H. v. John W.H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tammy J.H. v. John W.H.

42 A.D.3d 974, 837 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedJuly 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 974 (Tammy J.H. v. John W.H.) 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

Tammy J.H. v. John W.H., 42 A.D.3d 974, 837 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, J.), entered July 24, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order of protection directed respondent to observe certain conditions of behavior.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent committed acts that constitute harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 240.26 (3). Family Court erred in granting the petition because petitioner failed to meet [975]*975her burden at the fact-finding hearing of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the underlying acts (see Family Ct Act §§ 832, 834; see also People v Wood, 59 NY2d 811 [1983]). Present — Gorski, J.E, Martoche, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, J.), entered July 24, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order of protection directed respondent to observe certain conditions of behavior.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent committed acts that constitute harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 240.26 (3). Family Court erred in granting the petition because petitioner failed to meet [975]*975her burden at the fact-finding hearing of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the underlying acts (see Family Ct Act §§ 832, 834; see also People v Wood, 59 NY2d 811 [1983]). Present — Gorski, J.E, Martoche, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 974, 837 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammy-jh-v-john-wh-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack