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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 675 (Waaldijk-Howell v. Howell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related