Wallace v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wallace v. Wallace

45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 599 (Wallace v. Wallace) 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

Wallace v. Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kelly A. Wallace appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated October 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, and upon, in effect, a finding that she committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from the home of the petitioner Jeanette Wallace and to refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, intimidation, threats, or any criminal offense against Jeanette Wallace, up to and including October 16, 2007.

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

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on October 16, 2007, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see e.g. Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]; Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387, 388 [2006]; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 AD3d 874, 875 [2005]).

The Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]; Matter of Bryan S., 286 AD2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746, 747 [1996]). The record supports the Family Court, in effect, finding that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed an act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d 375 [2004]; Matter of Dienes v Dienes, 240 AD2d 576 [1997]; Matter of Pesce v Pesce, 223 AD2d 647 [1996]; Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766, 767 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, 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, Kelly A. Wallace appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated October 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, and upon, in effect, a finding that she committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from the home of the petitioner Jeanette Wallace and to refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, intimidation, threats, or any criminal offense against Jeanette Wallace, up to and including October 16, 2007.

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

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on October 16, 2007, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see e.g. Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]; Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387, 388 [2006]; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 AD3d 874, 875 [2005]).

The Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]; Matter of Bryan S., 286 AD2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746, 747 [1996]). The record supports the Family Court, in effect, finding that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed an act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d 375 [2004]; Matter of Dienes v Dienes, 240 AD2d 576 [1997]; Matter of Pesce v Pesce, 223 AD2d 647 [1996]; Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766, 767 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-wallace-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack