From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hallissey v. Hallissey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 17, 1999

Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of protection as directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from and not to assault, harass, or menace Kelly Ann Hallissey is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 21, 1998, is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision awarding an attorney's fee in the sum of $1,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The determination of whether the appellant committed an act constituting harassment in the second degree was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight ( see, Matter of Strully v. Schwartz, 253 A.D.2d 593 [ 255 A.D.2d 593]; Matter of Campbell v. Desir, 251 A.D.2d 402; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767). A review of the record reveals that its determination was supported by the evidence.

Although the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed a felony offense is not academic ( see, Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, supra), the expiration of the order of protection renders academic the appellant's contention that the Family Court erred by not holding a dispositional hearing ( see, Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610).

Although the appellant was properly ordered to pay an attorney's fee ( see, Family Ct Act § 842 [f]), there was no testimony establishing that Kelly Ann Hallissey incurred an attorney's fee in the amount awarded by the court. A hearing is therefore necessary as a "`"meaningful way of testing the [attorney's] claims relative to time and value"'" ( Petek v. Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327, 329; Kaprelian v. Kaprelian, 236 A.D.2d 369).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Schmidt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Hallissey v. Hallissey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Hallissey v. Hallissey

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KELLY A. HALLISSEY, Respondent v. JOHN HALLISSEY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 17, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 603

Citing Cases

Nusbaum v. Nusbaum

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. "The…

Matter of Topper v. Topper

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of…