Wan-Su Li v. Cloud Feng

4 Citing cases

  1. Shiffman v. Handler

    115 A.D.3d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 12 times

    The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see Matter of Alonso v. Perdue, 112 A.D.3d 920, 976 N.Y.S.2d 891;Matter of Saldivar v. Cabrera, 109 A.D.3d 831, 832, 971 N.Y.S.2d 310;cf. Matter of Wan–Su Li v. Feng, 45 A.D.3d 775, 776, 846 N.Y.S.2d 325). Here, in the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the mother did not sustain her burden.

  2. Charrat v. Jeanty

    146 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    r of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895, quoting Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585 ; see Matter of Tumba v. Gharib, 127 A.D.3d 770, 4 N.Y.S.3d 545 ). "The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record" (Matter of Charalambous v. Zohios, 125 A.D.3d 963, 963, 1 N.Y.S.3d 862 ; see Matter of Giresi–Palazzolo v. Palazzolo, 127 A.D.3d 752, 7 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Matter of Vachaviolos v. Rosa, 123 A.D.3d 731, 997 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). Here, contrary to the appellant's contentions, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court's determination that he committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree, criminal obstruction of breathing, and strangulation in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Family Ct. Act § 832 ; Penal Law §§ 120.00, 121.11, 121.12 ; Matter of Wan–Su Li v. Feng, 45 A.D.3d 775, 776, 846 N.Y.S.2d 325 ). The Family Court properly considered evidence of incidents that took place during the two-year time period preceding the filing of the family offense petition, as the petition specifies, inter alia, that the appellant had verbally and physically abused the petitioner "for the past two years" (cf. Matter of Bessent v. Bessent, 113 A.D.3d 847, 848, 979 N.Y.S.2d 543 ).

  3. Winston v. Edwards-Clarke

    127 A.D.3d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 23 times

    The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit (see Family Ct. Act § 842[k] ; Matter of Goldring v. Sprei, 121 A.D.3d 894, 895, 994 N.Y.S.2d 670 ; Matter of Banks v. Opoku, 109 A.D.3d 470, 970 N.Y.S.2d 562 ; Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 344, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537 ; Matter of Wan–Su Li v. Feng, 45 A.D.3d 775, 846 N.Y.S.2d 325 ).

  4. Lavern B. v. Byron W.

    39 Misc. 3d 1229 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2013)

    The Court further found that petitioner established that respondent committed the family offenses of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52), Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law § 120.00[1] ), and Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1] ). At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing the Court dispensed with a dispositional hearing (Matter of Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [2006];Matter of Wan–Su Li v. Feng, 45 AD3d 775, 775 [2007],lv denied10 NY3d 703 [2008];Matter of Kristina K. v. Timothy K., 91 AD3d 1045, [2012];Matter of Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S., 101 AD3d 425 [2012] ), and issued a final order of protection in favor of the petitioner for a period of two years (Fam. Ct. Act §§ 841[d]; 842).