Summary
In Yoba v Yoba (183 AD2d 418 [1st Dept 1992]), the Court referred to information which petitioner sought to include as not "relatively contemporaneous" to the application for an order of protection. Likewise, in the within case, the five- and six-year-old events are not "relatively contemporaneous" to the present day application for a permanent order of protection.
Summary of this case from Swersky v. SwerskyOpinion
May 7, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.).
In or around 1984, petitioner and respondent went through a Muslim marriage ceremony, and the petitioner and her four children took up residence in the respondent's four bedroom apartment. It appears that within a year petitioner and respondent began to experience marital difficulty. The instant petition alleges that on January 22, 1991 respondent used abusive and obscene language, pushed petitioner into a wall and slapped her about the head. The petition further alleged that respondent had been abusive to petitioner in the past and told her that he had bought a gun to use against her and sought an order of protection and removal of respondent from the marital home.
The information which petitioner sought to include was not relatively contemporaneous, and the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to amend (see, "Walker" v. "Walker", 198 Misc. 414). Nor do we find any basis to reverse the Family Court's dismissal of the petition. The Family Court simply did not credit petitioner's testimony and we decline to substitute our judgment for that of the Family Court. Insofar as the January 22, 1991 incident is concerned, it cannot be said that the court's determination could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, and petitioner's suggestion that this Court should substitute its own findings must be rejected (see, Nightingale Rest. Corp. v. Shak Food Corp., 155 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 702). Petitioner's allegations of bias, when viewed in context, are also insufficient to demonstrate that the subsequent proceedings were tainted (see, Matter of Sardino v. State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 58 N.Y.2d 286).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.