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

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

DecidedApril 29, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 622 (Yudelka A.M. v. Jose A.R.) 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

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

Pincite

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]*623Although 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]*623Although 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 622, 898 N.Y.S.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yudelka-am-v-jose-ar-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack