Crenshaw v. Thorpe-Crenshaw
| Decision Date | 25 January 2017 |
| Citation | 146 A.D.3d 951,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00466,45 N.Y.S.3d 555 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Willie CRENSHAW, respondent, v. Chanize THORPE–CRENSHAW, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 951
45 N.Y.S.3d 555
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00466
In the Matter of Willie CRENSHAW, respondent,
v.
Chanize THORPE–CRENSHAW, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 25, 2017.
Karen A. Sferlazzo, Warwick, NY, for appellant.
Dawn M. Shammas, Harrison, NY, attorney for the child.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated August 24, 2015. The order, after a hearing, found that the mother committed the family offenses of harassment in the "first or second degree" and criminal mischief, and directed her to observe the conditions of an order of protection dated August 20, 2015.
ORDERED that the order dated August 24, 2015, is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof finding that the mother committed the family offense of criminal mischief; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In May 2015, the father commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the mother. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the mother committed the family offenses of harassment in the "first or second degree" and criminal mischief, and directed her to observe the conditions of an order of protection dated August 20, 2015, which, inter alia, directed her to stay away from the father and the child Chyna C. (hereinafter the child) for a period of one year.
Initially, although the order of protection issued by the Family Court in connection with the father's family offense petition expired by its own terms on August 20, 2016, the appeal has not been rendered academic " ‘given the totality of the enduring legal and reputational consequences of the contested order
of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Elizabeth C., 2016–03794
...150 A.D.3d 1018, 55 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; Matter of Cody W. [Ronald L.], 148 A.D.3d 914, 915, 49 N.Y.S.3d 509; Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d 951, 951–952, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555). However, while the orders of protection issued against the father in the present case contained language ......
-
City of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Nassau
...reported (see Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 461, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 [2016] ; Matter of 146 A.D.3d 951Coplon v. Town of Eastchester, 82 A.D.3d 1095, 919 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; cf. Matter of Felice v. Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 A.D.3......
-
Porter v. Moore
...mischief, as there was no proof of property damage by the appellant (see Penal Law § 145.00[1] ; Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d 951, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Matter of Campbell v. Campbell, 123 A.D.3d at 1125, 1 N.Y.S.3d 219 ).Finally, the evidence adduced at the hearing support......
-
Shank v. Shank
...A.D.3d at 476, 58 N.Y.S.3d 491 ; see Matter of Armanious v. Armanious, 152 A.D.3d 674, 60 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d 951, 952, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Matter of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d 895, 896, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226 ).Here, according due deference to the cred......