From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-4

In re MARISELA N., Petitioner–Respondent, v. LACY M.S., Respondent–Appellant.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Karen P. Simmons, The Children's law Center, Brooklyn (Susan M. Cordaro of counsel), attorney for the children.



Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant. Karen P. Simmons, The Children's law Center, Brooklyn (Susan M. Cordaro of counsel), attorney for the children.
SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection for two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832), including petitioner's testimony, supports the court's finding that respondent had committed acts that constitute the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( see Family Ct. Act § 812[1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3] ), warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 841). There is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations ( see Matter of F.B. v. W.B., 248 A.D.2d 119, 669 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1st Dept.1998] ).

The order of protection is valid despite the lack of a dispositional hearing. “There is no explicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under Family Court Act article 8 ( Matter of Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P., 34 A.D.3d 307, 308, 824 N.Y.S.2d 628 [1st Dept.2006] ). In addition, respondent never demanded, or objected to the lack of, such a hearing ( see Matter of Tonya B. v. Matthew B., 90 A.D.3d 463, 463, 933 N.Y.S.2d 864 [1st Dept.2011] ). Moreover, since there is no other legal remedy available for the harassment proved against respondent and she “does not suggest any remedy other than issuance of an order of protection, a separate dispositional hearing would have served no purpose” ( Matter of Annie C. v. Marcellus W., 278 A.D.2d 177, 177–178, 719 N.Y.S.2d 225 [1st Dept.2000] ).


Summaries of

Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S.

Case Details

Full title:In re MARISELA N., Petitioner–Respondent, v. LACY M.S.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 4, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
101 A.D.3d 425
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8263

Citing Cases

Smith v. Rygiel

was emotionally fragile (seeMatter of Angelina L.C. [Michael C.—Patricia H.–C.], 110 A.D.3d 793, 973 N.Y.S.2d…

Rhina M.M. v. Sandy M.M.

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or about February 2, 2016, which,…