From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Velazquez v. Haffey

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 22, 2014
113 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-01-22

In the Matter of Christina VELAZQUEZ, appellant, v. Brian Patrick HAFFEY, Jr., respondent.

Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Kara K. Miller of counsel), for appellant. Joseph M. Clark, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent.


Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Kara K. Miller of counsel), for appellant. Joseph M. Clark, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent.
Cynthia Holfester–Neugebauer, Sea Cliff, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated November 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A family offense must be established by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence’ ” ( Matter of Alam v. Alam, 108 A.D.3d 665, 666, 968 N.Y.S.2d 403, quoting Family Ct. Act § 832). “Where, as here, the Family Court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal unless they were clearly unsupported by the record” ( Matter of Harris v. Harris, 59 A.D.3d 444, 444, 871 N.Y.S.2d 915; see Matter of Akter v. Patwary, 80 A.D.3d 759, 916 N.Y.S.2d 779; Matter of Krystal M., 3 A.D.3d 498, 499, 769 N.Y.S.2d 757; Matter of St. Denis v. St. Denis, 1 A.D.3d 370, 766 N.Y.S.2d 874). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed a family offense ( see Matter of Chavez–Gonzalez v. Tran, 107 A.D.3d 983, 966 N.Y.S.2d 877; Matter of Krisztina K. v. John S., 103 A.D.3d 724, 960 N.Y.S.2d 144; Matter of Harris v. Harris, 59 A.D.3d at 444–445, 871 N.Y.S.2d 915).

Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that the attorney for the child failed to diligently represent the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Gray v. Jones, 251 A.D.2d 765, 767, 674 N.Y.S.2d 174; Matter of Burr v. Emmett, 249 A.D.2d 614, 615–616, 670 N.Y.S.2d 637; Matter of Zirkind v. Zirkind, 218 A.D.2d 745, 746, 630 N.Y.S.2d 570). RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Velazquez v. Haffey

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 22, 2014
113 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Velazquez v. Haffey

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Christina VELAZQUEZ, appellant, v. Brian Patrick HAFFEY…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 2014

Citations

113 A.D.3d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 366
978 N.Y.S.2d 861

Citing Cases

Tyler v. Wright

ORDERED that the order dated October 16, 2013, which, without a hearing, dismissed the violation petition, is…

Tulshi v. Tulshi

Here, the mother filed a family offense petition alleging, inter alia, that the father had committed the…