Yudelka A.M. v. Jose A.R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yudelka A.M. v. Jose A.R.

72 A.D.3d 622, 898 N.Y.S.2d 850

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2010·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2009, which dismissed a family offense petition seeking an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[623] Although petitioner contends that the court erred in dismissing the petition without first making a factual determination as to whether the allegations of the petition were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, petitioner never objected on this ground when the court issued its ruling. Accordingly, petitioner’s contention is not preserved for review (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5501 [a] [3]; see also Matter of Michael A.M., 31 AD3d 1183, 1184 [2006]).

The court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing petitioner’s proffered rebuttal testimony, which was cumulative in part, and could have been presented as part of petitioner’s case-in-chief (see People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 490 [2002]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2009, which dismissed a family offense petition seeking an order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[623] Although petitioner contends that the court erred in dismissing the petition without first making a factual determination as to whether the allegations of the petition were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, petitioner never objected on this ground when the court issued its ruling. Accordingly, petitioner’s contention is not preserved for review (see Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5501 [a] [3]; see also Matter of Michael A.M., 31 AD3d 1183, 1184 [2006]).

The court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing petitioner’s proffered rebuttal testimony, which was cumulative in part, and could have been presented as part of petitioner’s case-in-chief (see People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 490 [2002]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Yudelka A.M. v. Jose A.R., 72 A.D.3d 622, 898 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

72 A.D.3d 622 (Yudelka A.M. v. Jose A.R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related