Clarke–Golding v. Golding
| Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09058,956 N.Y.S.2d 553,101 A.D.3d 1117 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Keisha CLARKE–GOLDING, respondent, v. Jeffrey GOLDING, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
101 A.D.3d 1117
956 N.Y.S.2d 553
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09058
In the Matter of Keisha CLARKE–GOLDING, respondent,
v.
Jeffrey GOLDING, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 26, 2012.
[956 N.Y.S.2d 554]
Jessica Sin, Little Neck, N.Y., for appellant.
Ralph Duthely, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent.
Jonathan H. Shim, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
[101 A.D.3d 1117]In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jeffrey Golding appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated December 14, 2011, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed certain family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including December 14, 2014.
ORDERED that the order of protection is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof directing that the order of protection shall remain in effect until and including December 14, 2014, and substituting therefor a provision directing that the order of protection shall remain in effect until and including December 14, 2013; as so modified, the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” [101 A.D.3d 1118]( Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Armstrong v. Ewing, 82 A.D.3d 1092, 919 N.Y.S.2d 343;Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895), “and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” ( Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d at 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;see Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d at 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence did not support the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense of
assault in the third degree ( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 812[1], 832; Penal Law § 120.00; Matter of Gray v. Gray, 55 A.D.3d 909, 910, 867 N.Y.S.2d 110;Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 A.D.3d 419, 817 N.Y.S.2d 332;Matter of Strully v. Schwartz, 255 A.D.2d 593, 680 N.Y.S.2d 871). However, a preponderance of the credible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dargan
...matters so as to fall within their supervisory role, the defendant's absence during such communications did not constitute a [956 N.Y.S.2d 553]violation of his right to be present ( see People v. Manzo, 233 A.D.2d at 530, 650 N.Y.S.2d 763;People v. Buxton, 192 A.D.2d 289, 293, 601 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Masciello v. Masciello
...N.Y.S.2d 374 ). Therefore, the duration of the order of protection may not exceed two years (see Matter of Clarke–Golding v. Golding, 101 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 956 N.Y.S.2d 553 ; Matter of Brito v. Vasquez, 93 A.D.3d 842, 843, 941 N.Y.S.2d 634 ; Matter of Drury v. Drury, 90 A.D.3d at 755, 934 ......
-
Kondor v. Kondor
...the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner's family or household” (Family Ct. Act § 827[a][vii]; see Matter of Clarke–Golding v. Golding, 101 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 956 N.Y.S.2d 553;Matter of Harry v. Harry, 85 A.D.3d at 791, 924 N.Y.S.2d 816). To the extent that certain language in Matter......
-
Winfield v. Gammons
...of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record ( see Matter of Clarke–Golding v. Golding, 101 A.D.3d 1117, 956 N.Y.S.2d 553;see Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895;Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d 689, 897 N.Y.S......