Waaldijk-Howell v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waaldijk-Howell v. Howell

22 A.D.3d 675, 801 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 675 (Waaldijk-Howell v. Howell) 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

Waaldijk-Howell v. Howell, 22 A.D.3d 675, 801 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated July 9, 2004, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding upon finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). The determination of whether the respondent committed such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Bongiorno v Bongiorno, 1 AD3d 511 [2003]), and we find no basis to disturb it. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lunn, 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 petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated July 9, 2004, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding upon finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). The determination of whether the respondent committed such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Bongiorno v Bongiorno, 1 AD3d 511 [2003]), and we find no basis to disturb it. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 675, 801 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waaldijk-howell-v-howell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack